[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 25 (Thursday, February 11, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H728-H749]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         DEBT MANAGEMENT AND FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 2015


                             General Leave

  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks and to insert extraneous material on H.R. 3442, the Debt 
Management and Fiscal Responsibility Act.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 609 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3442.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne) to preside 
over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1326


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 3442) to provide further means of accountability of the United 
States debt and promote fiscal responsibility, with Mr. Byrne in the 
chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) and the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Levin) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.

[[Page H729]]

  I am pleased to speak in support of H.R. 3442, the Debt Management 
and Fiscal Responsibility Act. I would also like to thank Mr. Marchant 
of Texas for his leadership on this legislation.
  H.R. 3442 was considered by the Committee on Ways and Means in 
September of 2015, and it was passed with strong support. It is also 
highly relevant.
  I have just come from our second hearing on the 2017 budget. Anything 
we can do to add clarity and stability to our budget and debt process 
is extremely helpful. The amount of debt this country currently owes is 
staggering--$19 trillion and growing. The Congressional Budget Office 
estimates that the debt will reach $29 trillion in 2026.
  Let's be clear about why this is happening. It is not because 
Americans aren't taxed enough; it is because Washington has a spending 
problem. As we look to the future, revenues will remain half a 
percentage point above their historical average as a share of the 
economy. Meanwhile, spending will rise from 21 percent of the share of 
the economy today to 23 percent in 2026, both of which are far above 
the historical average of 19.9 percent.
  When Republicans took the House in 2010, this government borrowed 40 
cents for every dollar it spent, and, today, it is 14 cents; but that 
is not good enough, because, under the current law baseline, it will go 
up to 21 cents per dollar in 2026. At this rate, if left unchecked, 
deficits will rise from over $500 billion this year to nearly $1.4 
trillion in 2026. Congress needs to address this and consider real 
solutions to lowering the debt and bringing sustainability to our 
Federal Government. We can't do that if we don't have a debt management 
system that is consistent, transparent, and accountable.
  The Debt Management and Fiscal Responsibility Act would create a 
system that allows Congress to make informed decisions about the debt 
ceiling and consider changes before it becomes a crisis.
  This bill would require the Secretary of the Treasury to report to 
Congress before the statutory debt limit ceiling is hit so that 
legislators have the information they need when considering the debt 
limit. That reporting would include the current State of the national 
debt as well as future debt projections and the administration's plans 
to meet future obligations.
  The Secretary would also report proposals of the President's on how 
to reduce the debt in the short, medium, and long term and any 
proposals to improve the debt-to-GDP ratio.
  Finally, the administration would have to submit a progress report if 
it requests multiple debt limit increases so that Congress and the 
American people can finally get information about the progress that is 
being made.

                              {time}  1330

  This legislation will also make the Secretary's reports available 
online so everyone in America can access this important information.
  We are at a time when serious decisions must be made about how to 
grow the economy and stop the increase in the national debt. We can't 
do that if we don't have the necessary information. So this means that 
we need to be on the same page about the drivers of our debt and to 
have an open discussion about our intention to reduce the debt.
  This bill would take a process that has become, I think, chaotic and 
difficult for everyone and instead create a system--a good, smart, open 
system--that provides a consistent framework.
  As others have said, the national debt is a shared responsibility, 
and we need to focus on ways to address it and move forward sensibly. 
The current path we are on just isn't sustainable. It will require all 
of us, both in the legislative and executive branch, to work together 
to find solutions.
  The Debt Management and Fiscal Responsibility Act is an important 
step in improving this process. It not only provides clarity and 
transparency, but it also creates accountability and establishes a 
framework to discuss options and ideas on how to reduce this national 
debt.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The chairman said this bill came out with strong support and it is 
relevant. Now, the vote in the committee--this was many, many months 
ago--was strictly partisan, and this bill is really a diversion. It was 
marked up at the same time as that Pay China First Act. Does anybody 
remember that irresponsible legislation that came to the floor that was 
passed by the Republicans and died the death legislatively it deserved?
  So here we are with this bill, part of a two-package bill, that also 
is going nowhere. It is worse than that, because it is really a 
diversion, a diversion from what we really should be talking about. It 
requires the Treasury Department to provide to Congress information on 
the debt limit that we already receive, distracting from Republicans' 
repeated recklessness about default and reinforcing the false belief 
that the debt limit is a tool for managing the debt.
  House Republicans refused to invite OMB Director Shaun Donovan to 
Capitol Hill this week to testify on the President's budget--an 
unprecedented action. We asked this morning in the Ways and Means 
Committee: Why did neither the House nor the Senate controlled by 
Republicans invite the OMB Director? Well, the chairman of the Budget 
Committee was there at the time and said something like: We don't have 
time.
  That is really shameful. We are debating this bill together, which 
would require the Treasury Secretary to provide a report and come 
testify before Congress on the very debt reduction proposals they are 
refusing to hear about now, including from the Budget Director. If 
nothing else, Republicans are proving they are consistent with their 
inconsistency.
  If we were to request from Treasury a new report related to the debt 
limit, it should focus on the dire consequences of default. It should 
provide detailed information on the veterans who would not get the 
benefits they earned. It should tell how many doctors and hospitals who 
treat Medicare patients won't be paid for care they already provided. 
It should enumerate the Pell grants we will not pay to students who 
rely on them to pay for college. And it should explain and enumerate 
the catastrophic consequences of default to our economy.
  That is the kind of information Congress might need the next time we 
debate the debt limit if Republicans once again propose default instead 
of responsible action. Instead, Republicans are insisting on a report 
that would distract from the danger of default and do nothing to help 
reduce the debt.
  If the real goal is debt reduction, as I said, Republicans should 
welcome OMB Director Donovan to explain the administration's ideas, and 
then they should sit down with Democrats and take bipartisan action 
now, as we did during the Clinton administration, when bipartisan 
legislation generated record budget surpluses.
  So the Republicans, I guess, are trying to divert the focus from 
their inability to take action to reduce the deficit and instead blame 
Treasury and the administration.
  The administration has issued a Statement of Administration Policy. 
They indicate, if the President were presented with H.R. 3442, his 
advisers would recommend he veto this bill.
  Let me close by just saying how unfortunate it is to bring up this 
effort to obscure the problem instead of acting on legislation that is 
so badly needed, including addressing inversions that are going on one 
after another in this country. This, I think, demonstrates the total 
failure of Republicans to face up to what we are now facing. We should 
be acting on that instead of this bill.
  Well, this is going to have the same fate as the Pay China First Act, 
such a terrible mistake it was. It is going nowhere. It will be 
strictly partisan.
  So I say to the Republicans in this House, you talk about common 
ground; instead you bring forth something that essentially is a sham, 
and you can't stand together on what is essentially a sham.
  Mr. Pascrell, a distinguished member of our committee, at this point 
will control the remainder of the time on our side.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Collins of New York). The gentleman from New 
Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member and the

[[Page H730]]

chairman and, of course, my good friend from Texas (Mr. Marchant).
  I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This week, the President sent his fiscal year 2017 budget to Congress 
and released it to the American people. His budget included numerous 
proposals to reduce the deficit by $2.9 trillion and grow our economy. 
In fact, under President Obama's leadership, we have seen deficits 
shrink to stark lows, the smallest it has been in 7 years.
  However, the chairman of the House Budget Committee has refused to 
hold a hearing on the President's budget with the Office of Management 
and Budget. This is the first time in 40 years that the President's 
budget will not be granted a hearing. We separate the powers, but we 
never separate respect.
  Ignoring the fact that the President just sent deficit reduction 
proposals to Congress, rebuffing the OMB Director's request to testify, 
the House has instead gone to consider legislation that requires the 
administration to submit deficit reduction proposals and come and 
testify about the debt limit and the deficit. Something doesn't quite 
add up here.
  I have tremendous respect for the sponsor of this bill. I think he is 
acting in good faith--I think it is logical, but I don't think it is 
true; not everything logical is true, you know--the author of the bill 
and my colleague on the Ways and Means Committee. But I believe this 
legislation misses the forest for the trees.
  When nearing the debt limit, the most important thing for Congress to 
know is the catastrophic consequences of a default, yet this bill makes 
no mention of such a report. Instead, the legislation before us today 
asks the Treasury Department to report to Congress on things that 
Congress is most equipped to know. So they are asking us to hear what 
we already should know.
  The drivers and composition of future debt--that is us--and how the 
United States will meet its debt obligations, that is what is important 
to us and that is what is important to the American people.
  Just a reminder of our constitutional roles: the Congress has the 
responsibility to enact spending and revenue measures; the Treasury 
Department, part of the executive branch, executes the laws that we 
enact--not vice versa. They can't spend money that we haven't 
authorized.
  This bill would create new statutory requirements for the Treasury 
Department that are unnecessary and duplicative. The Secretary of the 
Treasury regularly corresponds with the Budget Committee about the debt 
limit and provides regular updates about the status of our ability to 
meet our debt obligations.
  If I might add just at this point, we know what the Constitution says 
about the debt limit. The 14th Amendment is very clear, section 4:
  ``The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by 
law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions . . . shall not 
be questioned.''
  That is what the Constitution--you know, we refer to the ``we,'' 
constitutionalists, only when it suits our purpose and supports our 
arguments. I think we should look at the Constitution as a document 
which affects everybody at any time in any place within our borders.
  Now, the Treasury provides us with the following: the budget, the 
Mid-Session Review--in fact, it is online; the Daily Treasury 
Statement, online; the Monthly Treasury Statement, online; the Monthly 
Statement of the Public Debt, online; the Schedule of Federal Debt and 
the Financial Report of the United States Government--all of which, I 
am saying again, are available on the Internet.
  At the time this legislation was brought before the Ways and Means 
Committee in September of 2015, Republicans were considering a default 
on the full faith and credit of the United States. A default would have 
catastrophic consequences, including a collapse of world credit markets 
and a destruction of job markets.
  Should Congress fail to raise the debt limit, the Treasury will not 
be able to pay veterans' benefits, pay doctors, pay hospitals, take 
care of Medicare patients, pay salaries to our troops or Pell grants to 
students who need them. These are expenditures that have already been 
authorized by the Congress, but if we don't act on the debt limit, we 
simply can't pay them. We can't.
  Fortunately, we were able to come together. We worked together, 
believe it or not. We suspended the debt limit through March of 2017. 
The report triggered by this bill, H.R. 3442, will be wholly 
duplicative of information Congress has already received from the 
Treasury Department, the Office of Management and Budget. So much for 
government efficiency.
  Well, I believe, my good friend from Texas, what we can and should do 
is come together in a bipartisan manner on a budget--what we can and we 
should do. But I believe that we will instead see a deeply partisan and 
ideological budget for my good friends on the other side that has no 
chance of garnering any Democratic support. I hope that is not the 
motivation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARCHANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  I would like to thank the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee 
for his consideration and his speaking on the bill today and commend my 
colleague from New Jersey. We had a very lively discussion about this 
bill in the Rules Committee. Over the years, my colleague and I have 
been able to disagree very agreeably, and I trust that today will 
continue in that spirit.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. Chairman, I introduced the Debt Management and Fiscal 
Responsibility Act because Congress and the administration need to 
focus on finding debt reduction solutions.
  There is rarely a time that I appear in my district at a townhall 
meeting or even a gathering of just a few people where the subject of 
the debt of the United States of America is not the focal point of the 
discussion. I never go through a public meeting where someone doesn't 
raise their hand and say: What is Congress doing about the national 
debt?
  When we began to contemplate this bill a couple years ago, we began 
to think about how we could put into law a process where Congress would 
not solve the debt problem, but we would begin a process where the 
committees of jurisdiction would have a full report from the Treasury 
and the Secretary of the Treasury about where we were with the debt and 
the plans of the administration and what they would do to reduce that 
debt.
  When this bill was passed out of the Committee on Ways and Means in 
September, the national debt was $18.1 trillion. Now it is over $19 
trillion. Debt held by the public is now roughly 74 percent of the 
economy's annual output. It is also a higher percentage than at any 
point in American history except for a very brief period around World 
War II. If current law remains unchanged, the Congressional Budget 
Office predicts that Federal debt held by the public will exceed 100 
percent of GDP in 25 years. This is unsustainable.
  Everyone knows that the national debt is increasing, but the existing 
strategy for dealing with the debt limit only fuels conflict and fiscal 
irresponsibility. This creates disruption and uncertainty, and it 
erodes the confidence in the American leadership and economy.
  Five times in the last 5 years, the Treasury Department has had to 
employ extraordinary measures to avoid reaching the debt limit. These 
maneuvers are supposed to be a last resort. They were only employed six 
other times between the 1980s and 2011. Extraordinary measures have 
become the new normal, just like record levels of debt.
  The goal of H.R. 3442 is to establish a new debt limit process that 
is more transparent, accountable, and timely. This legislation would 
allow Congress and the American people to take an early and accurate 
look at the debt and the statutory debt limit before it is reached, not 
after the press release that it has been reached is released.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished minority whip.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, the gentleman from Texas says he gets asked all 
the time about the national debt.

[[Page H731]]

He can give a very simple answer--because the Congress keeps spending 
money and not paying for it. That is how you incur debt; you buy things 
and you don't pay for them. They can be all sorts of things. They can 
be Social Security, they can be Medicare, they can be battleships, they 
can be health care, they can be roads, they can be bridges. If you 
don't pay for them--it shouldn't be any surprise--you incur debt.
  Who spends money in the United States of America? The Congress. Under 
the Constitution, we are the ones who spend money. I say to my friend 
from Texas, he might also say, Well, when you create $800 billion-plus 
of new debt by cutting taxes and not paying for them, you have less 
revenue, but you don't cut buying stuff, you have more debt. $800-plus 
billion in December. I didn't vote for that bill because we didn't pay 
for it.
  Now, I have been in office a long time. It is easy and takes no 
courage to cut taxes, no courage whatsoever. What takes courage is 
buying things--and if people want them--saying, we need to pay for 
them. We need to pay for them so our children don't pay for them, so 
our grandchildren don't pay for them because, guess what, they are 
going to have their challenges in their time, national security 
challenges, natural disasters like Katrina or Sandy challenges, Ebola, 
AIDS, health crises. They are going to have to have resources, and we 
are spending them.
  I have been here sometime, longer I think than the gentleman from 
Texas, longer than my friend from New Jersey. There is one person in 
America who can stop spending in its tracks. I have been here 36 years. 
No President in the 36 years that I have served has had a veto 
overridden of a bill that spent too much money. Not one. Not one 
Republican President, not one Democratic President. So a President can 
stop spending in its tracks.
  Under Ronald Reagan, we increased the national debt 189 percent. It 
was less than a trillion dollars when I came to the Congress of the 
United States. It was increased under Ronald Reagan 189 percent, the 
largest of any President.
  Under George Bush, in 4 years, it was increased 55 percent; under 
Bill Clinton, in 8 years, 36 percent. But guess what, during the last 4 
years, we had a balanced budget, the only time in the lifetime of 
anybody in this body that we have had 4 years of balanced budgets.
  Now, my Republican friends will say, well, we were in charge of the 
Congress. For the last 6 years you were. But you were in charge of the 
House, the Senate, and the Presidency under George W. Bush, and the 
budget deficit was increased 87 percent.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. PASCRELL. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, the President says he is going to veto this 
bill, but the irony is--and the chairman sits on the floor--the 
Director of the Office of Management and Budget has submitted a budget 
on behalf of the administration to respond exactly to the questions 
that this bill wants to ask.
  For the first time in 41 years, the administration has been refused 
the opportunity to testify, which The Washington Post called, 
gratuitously, contemptuous. And then my friends have the audacity to 
bring a bill on the floor in the same week and ask the Secretary of the 
Treasury to come down and testify, talk about the debt when we know 
darn well why the debt is what it is.
  It is our responsibility, because we incur it, to make sure that we 
pay our debt. That is our moral responsibility, as well as our 
constitutional responsibility. This is politics at its most 
contemptuous level. It is to pretend that somehow the President is 
responsible.
  My friends, we ought to reject this bill not because of the bill 
itself, but we get this information, as has been so often said. We 
already get this information. You don't need the Secretary of the 
Treasury to come down here and give it to us. He testifies before the 
Committee on Ways and Means; he testifies before other committees.
  Let's reject this bill because it is phony, not because substantively 
we don't need this information. We have it. It is redundant. It does 
what my friends on the Republican side so often say, we ought to not 
have redundant things.
  Mr. Chair, I appreciate the fact that my time has expired. This bill 
ought to expire with it.
  Mr. MARCHANT. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Tennessee (Mrs. Black), who serves on the Committee on Ways and Means 
and the Committee on the Budget.
  Mrs. BLACK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chair, our Nation is $19 trillion in debt. That is more than 
$58,000 for every man, woman, and child. Now, Tennesseeans know that 
mounting debt burden in Washington is not just an economic concern.
  This is a national security issue and it is a moral issue, one that 
the President is willfully choosing to ignore. His latest budget would 
cause our debt to spike to more than $27 trillion over the next 10 
years, and when the government maxes out its credit cards to pay for 
this runaway spending, the Obama administration routinely insists on a 
so-called clean debt limit hike, a blank check with no strings 
attached.
  Mr. Chair, our constituents deserve better than that. They expect the 
Congress would assert its role as a coequal branch of government and 
leverage these opportunities to demand real cuts and to engage the 
administration in an honest conversation about Washington's spending 
addiction.
  And that is why I support the Debt Management and Fiscal 
Responsibility Act. This commonsense piece of legislation would require 
that the administration come to here--yes, the people's House--before 
any potential debt limit increase and testify about the drivers of our 
debt and a plan to fix it. The Treasury Department would then be 
required to post this information on their Web site so that the 
American people can see the facts for themselves. After all, it is 
their money that we are spending.
  Mr. Chair, this is about injecting some basic accountability into a 
budgeting process. Taxpayers and the next generation of Americans who 
will inherit this debt burden that we are accumulating today are owed 
at least that much.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Debt Management and Fiscal 
Responsibility Act.
  Mr. PASCRELL. How much time is remaining, Mr. Chair?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey has 15 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chair, I just want to remind the young lady from 
the other side of the aisle, my good friend, that everything she has 
asked for is pertinent and important, but it is already on the 
Internet.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a 
distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Amnesia. Amnesia, Mr. Chair, once again pervades this 
Republican Conference. Where were these great deficit hawks 2 months 
ago when they had an opportunity to vote on increasing the national 
debt? They were there raising their hand ``aye'' in favor of hiking the 
national debt. Today, they come forward with the audacity to say let's 
solve the runaway national debt problem; we want another government 
report to do it.
  Yes, at Christmastime, these deficit hawks went on a spending spree 
right here in this House. Not a spending spree to provide more 
educational opportunity for our children, not a spending spree to 
provide more medical research dollars for our scientists and 
physicians, not a spending spree to do something about our crumbling 
roads or to build a competitive infrastructure, but a spending spree 
with tax expenditures from the Tax Code to stuff every silk stocking 
they could find. Anyone who had a powerful lobby, they were here to get 
an expanded or extended tax cut.
  Here is what was said 2 months ago, and I quote:
  ``Budgeting in this country has pretty much become a joke. Members of 
Congress give heartfelt speeches''--the same kind we are hearing 
today--``about being responsible. . . . And then time and time again, 
they cast votes that add billions and even trillions of dollars to the 
debt. The rampant hypocrisy is quite galling.''
  ``How can lawmakers claim that their budget will achieve balance when 
they just passed a deficit-financed tax deal that blows a big hole in 
the budget?''

[[Page H732]]

  Those weren't the words of a Democrat. Those weren't the words of a 
progressive institution. They were the words of Maya MacGuineas, the 
president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a 
bipartisan organization. On their board is Mitch Daniels, Alan Simpson, 
and a host of Republicans.
  That final bill that they voted for 2 months ago added $830 billion 
to the national debt over the next 10 years, as they borrowed money 
from abroad to give it to Wall Street and other special interests. It 
will cost us about $2 trillion over the next two decades.
  One of the biggest items in that budget was a giveaway to Wall Street 
banks, the same Wall Street banks that helped bring this country to its 
knees in the economic crisis. Yet they came in and they got a tax break 
in order to encourage shipping more jobs overseas, which is what that 
particular tax break does.
  They come back to us today, having added to the debt so much. Never 
seeing a tax break for a special interest that they didn't like--to 
borrow from Will Rogers--they come to us today and say give us a 
report, give us another speech.
  When we had the Treasury Secretary in front of our committee all 
morning, our Republican chairman was candid. He was cordial, but he was 
candid in saying that everything that the Treasury Secretary was 
offering was dead on arrival, would never see the light of day.
  This is a wasted endeavor that ought to be rejected.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. MARCHANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Roskam), the chairman of the Oversight Subcommittee of 
the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Marchant has gotten people's attention 
this afternoon. I am really surprised at how lively and engaged our 
friends are on the other side of the aisle.
  So, it begs the question: What is so provocative about this bill? 
What is so provocative and incendiary? Apparently, having the 
administration come with a plan, as it relates to the debt, is a 
provocation.
  I don't think our friends on the other side of the aisle have to take 
the bait. In fact, the ranking member said it came out with only 
Republican votes. If I were a Democrat, I wouldn't admit that it only 
came out with Republican votes. I would be trying to claim credit for 
this.
  Why? Because I come from the State of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, let me 
tell you what happens when you avoid problems. The State of Illinois 
has avoided problems year after year after year. My home State now has 
a $100 billion unfunded pension liability. That is a fact. Illinois has 
a crisis.
  What Mr. Marchant is proposing is very simple and very clear. If this 
is provocative, I don't know how to deal with it. It requires the 
administration to lay out a proposal to reduce the debt in the short 
term: 1 to 2 years.
  The criticism of the administration's current budget is that it never 
balances. Ever. Think about that. Hello. Never. There is never a 
balance.
  So, what he is saying is they have got to come in and show how they 
are going to deal with this. Short-term, medium-term, understanding its 
relationship debt to GDP; all of these things are so important.
  We are told: Hey, go to the Internet. That is where your information 
is. No; what we need is for the administration to understand the 
information on the Internet--if that is where it is--and come in and 
present it in a cogent and clear way.
  Yes, Congress has the primary responsibility. Yes, the House 
Republicans have articulated a view that says we can balance this, we 
can deal with these programs, and we can deal with these cost drivers. 
We have been met time again by a stiff arm from the President of the 
United States, who has now redefined the concept of balance. Balance 
used to mean one plus one equals two. Now the administration says that 
balance is--what was their latest vernacular--long-term fiscal 
sustainability. That is ridiculous.
  Representative Marchant needs to be congratulated. This is a great 
idea. We ought to be celebrating this. If I were a Democrat, I wouldn't 
admit to voting against it.
  I urge passage of the bill.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I just heard something from my good friend from Illinois that bears 
repeating, which is to have the administration come and testify on 
their deficit plan.
  The President's budget includes $2.9 trillion in deficit reduction. 
You have refused a visit from the administration to discuss it. How is 
that for provocation?
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARCHANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Tom Price), chairman of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Marchant, my good 
friend, for introducing this legislation.
  Before I address the legislation, I want to talk very briefly about 
the President's budget.
  The President has, indeed, introduced a budget. It raises over $3 
trillion over a 10-year period of time. It increases spending. It 
increases the interest payments on the debt so that they approach $1 
trillion at the end of 10 years.
  We thought it was appropriate to save the President the embarrassment 
of bringing him before our committee, because when you put that budget 
on the floor, which we have done in the past, the President gets two 
votes from his own party. Just two. So we thought it was appropriate to 
save the President that embarrassment.
  I want to commend my friend, Mr. Marchant from Texas, for introducing 
this legislation, H.R. 3442, today. This is really a simple and 
straightforward piece of legislation. The bill enhances accountability, 
reduces potentially disruptive risks to our economy, and would help 
Congress reach real debt reduction solutions that the American people 
so clearly desire and deserve.
  Under this act, as we approach any debt limit, the administration 
would have to appear before Congress and provide testimony on what is 
driving that national debt so that we know that they actually 
appreciate the drivers of that debt; relate a clear, unambiguous series 
of proposals on deficit and debt reduction, which they don't do--by the 
way, the President's budget never balances--and update Congress on 
progress being made toward debt reduction, which is a principle that we 
believe and the American people believe is important, but, apparently, 
this administration does not.
  As Budget chairman, I can tell you there is nothing more troubling 
than the ever-increasing spending that happens around here, especially 
in the automatic programs. That is why I am heartened that this bill 
would require the administration to project the fiscal health and the 
long-term sustainability of major programs like Medicare and Social 
Security, that, by the way, are going broke unless something is done.
  This bill will help further educate the American people on the dire 
need to save and strengthen and secure these programs. Our budget--the 
proposal that we put forward--has proposed positive solutions. We need 
the administration to be a cooperative partner in getting solutions 
enacted. Forcing them to confront these challenges will be helpful. 
This bill will do that.
  It is pretty simple, Mr. Chairman. House Republicans have been 
proposing action our Nation needs to take in order to get spending 
under control and reduce our debt. It seems only fitting and proper 
that the administration should have to do the same. That is why I am 
urging a ``yes'' vote on this bill.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I just heard something very interesting. When I hear 
things interesting, I like to repeat them.
  So, we are going to save the President the embarrassment. The ranking 
member, Sandy Levin, mentioned that. He said today that is less than a 
lame excuse: to save the President embarrassment.
  You should be embarrassed balancing the budget on the money from the 
Affordable Care Act, which you have recommended we destroy. How is that 
for embarrassment?

[[Page H733]]

  I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), a 
distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, the issue of the Nation's deficit is a 
real concern, but let's be honest: the issue of the country's deficits 
are of greater concern to our constituents at home than they appear 
to be to many people in this Chamber.

  Our constituents understand and support some government spending is 
necessary to keep our country going strong. Our constituents understand 
that some debt is needed. Like government, they incur debts, too: a 
mortgage, a car loan, a student loan, credit card debt, a small 
business loan. They also get alarmed when they see deficits that are 
too high.
  So, that is why it is the job of Congress and the President to 
develop a budget and raise and spend the necessary revenue to operate 
the government while also meeting the demands of our constituents.
  This week, President Obama submitted his budget plan to the Congress 
for review. Within that budget is a plan to sensibly cut the Nation's 
deficit by $2.9 trillion.
  I think there are some good ideas in the budget. Maybe others 
disagree. But Congress should at least discuss it. Yet, earlier this 
week, they refused to allow the White House to come to Congress and 
discuss the budget and the deficit.
  We are spending time and taxpayer money to debate a bill to mandate 
the White House come to Congress and discuss the budget and the deficit 
when, earlier this week, these same folks refused to allow the White 
House to come to Congress and discuss the budget and the deficit.
  It is a telling action by my Republican colleagues, as they want to 
look like defenders of the taxpayers' money by demanding answers on how 
to reduce the deficit--which is a good thing--while blocking the 
ability for us to actually get any answers on how to reduce the 
deficit.
  Because they refuse to invite the White House Budget Director to 
discuss the budget, let me share with you a few things that White House 
officials would have said if they were invited to speak before the 
Congress on the budget and the deficit.
  Do you remember the $800 billion TARP funds paid to the Nation's 
largest banks by the Bush administration? The banks have repaid the 
money--with interest--under President Obama.
  Those trillion-dollar annual deficits that started under President 
Bush's administration, in part due to the TARP fund and in part due to 
the Republican recession of 2007-2009, are gone.
  More Americans are working now than ever in the history of the United 
States, with private businesses adding over 14 million jobs under the 
policies of Democrats. One of those policies was supporting the U.S. 
auto industry. When my Republican friends wanted to destroy and 
bankrupt Detroit, Democrats voted to save the U.S. auto industry. 
Today, the American car industry is on fire and has added over 645,000 
American jobs since 2009.
  Now, Republicans will argue they are pushing forward to eliminate 
annual deficits and not increase the debt. But that simply is not true. 
The Republican budget, while theoretically balancing in 10 years, 
increases the national debt by $3 trillion in that time period, which 
necessitates an increase in the debt ceiling. Therefore, Republicans, 
despite their claims and their rhetoric, have to increase the debt 
ceiling or risk the U.S. being in default.
  So, Republicans claiming they won't raise the debt ceiling are either 
not being honest about raising the debt ceiling, not being honest about 
their budget, or they want the U.S. to not pay its bills and be in 
default. Which is it?
  Additionally, the Republican budget eliminates $5.5 trillion in 
spending on programs like student loans, unemployment insurance, child 
support programs, as well as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. PASCRELL. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. CROWLEY. At least they detail these cuts, such as ending Medicare 
as you know it.
  Even more sinister, their budget--which every one of them brags about 
supporting--includes $1.1 trillion in spending cuts that are not even 
detailed, except to say they will go after retirement programs for 
Federal employees, military personnel, and veterans. They very cleverly 
hid those cuts in a footnote in their budget.
  I am wondering on what page of their phony budget they create 
unicorns, because everything else in their so-called budget is one big, 
giant fairy tale.
  So, Mr. Chairman, let's not fool the American people. They know what 
exactly is going on here.
  They want to have it both ways: they want to call the White House on 
the carpet and say they want to discuss the Nation's deficit, and, at 
the same time, this very week, give the Budget Director an invitation 
to come before the Congress and talk about the budget and the deficit.
  The American people are asking: What is going on? They know exactly 
what you are doing. Once again, you are using rhetoric, but not 
addressing the real problems of everyday Americans.
  Mr. Chairman, we need to get down to the American people's business 
and get the answers we need and that they demand.
  Mr. MARCHANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I think a careful review of the bill will reflect that this bill's 
effective date will be 2017.
  While I cannot say with any certainty who the President will be or 
which party it will be, I would remind the House that this bill puts 
the responsibility on the administration, regardless of which party 
holds the White House, and it is an ongoing responsibility that will 
further the discussion and collaborative nature of our solutions to 
this debt.

                              {time}  1415

  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Brat).
  Mr. BRAT. I thank the gentleman from Texas very much.
  Mr. Chair, I had some prepared remarks, but the opposition just 
brought up rhetoric and unicorns in the same sentence, and so I feel 
obliged to respond with a couple of preliminary remarks. I will just 
make four.
  The rhetoric is easy to come by in this city, but the facts are very 
clear. I have never seen a Democrat budget that has been smaller than a 
Republican budget. Every year they turn in a budget that is 
significantly bigger than ours. That is just fact number one.
  Fact number two, our budget balances in 10 years. I have never seen, 
in my history here, a Democrat budget that balances in any time 
horizon--and we are talking about the debt.
  Point number three, we are talking about the President and his 
commitment to fiscal sanity. I have never heard the current President 
mention our unfunded liability problem, which is in the $100 trillion 
range. That is the most serious number and economic challenge our 
country faces. I have never heard our President bring that up as a 
problem to solve.
  And finally, when it comes to fiscal restraint on the other side, the 
winner of the New Hampshire primary on the opposition side is calling 
for 90 percent tax rates and free everything.
  So, when it comes to rhetoric, those are just four simple facts I 
offer to the other side when it comes to fiscal responsibility.
  I want to move forward and commend Representative Marchant for 
putting this bill forward. This country desperately needs to have an 
honest conversation about our fiscal problems, the full range, from the 
debt of $19 trillion to the unfunded liabilities at $100 trillion. 
Total outstanding public debt exceeds $19 trillion. We just passed that 
this week or so. The unfunded liabilities are multiples of that.
  Deficits are exploding, in the $500 billion range per year. Deficits 
by 2026 will be about $1 trillion a year. That will bring the total 
debt to about $30 trillion in a decade. All of this is on the back of 
our children. If we continue on the path of the status quo, we will end 
in a debt crisis as China is in now.
  That is why I support this bill, because it advances the dialogue 
exactly when Presidential leadership is most needed, when the debt 
limit looms. Having leadership from a responsible President could make 
a world of difference.

[[Page H734]]

  Of course, talking isn't the end goal. Talk must spur action. These 
problems get harder to solve the longer we wait.
  According to CBO's 2015 long-term budget outlook, if we wait 10 
years, the costs will be nearly one-third greater as a percentage of 
GDP, and even larger in dollar terms. That is why it is so important we 
address this critical issue head-on now.
  It is also getting harder to address the drivers of debt. Annual 
spending bills cover only 30 percent of Federal spending, and it will 
be 22 percent in 10 years.
  The rest of Federal spending is on autopilot. Back in 1966, autopilot 
consumed 34 percent of Federal revenues. By 2026, autopilot spending is 
on track to be 98.7 percent of revenue in a vastly larger economy.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. MARCHANT. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. BRAT. Some say it is all demographics. That is a narrow view. As 
society changes, our institutions have to keep up. That is what we are 
trying to do in this bill.
  We cannot continue to ignore the looming fiscal debt crisis until it 
becomes catastrophic. Let's address it now while we can still make 
meaningful reforms. I thank Congressman Marchant for taking steps in 
that direction by proposing this bill.
  Let's come together, pass this bill, and continue with the reforms 
that will make the economic outlook for our children and for future 
generations greater and brighter. Our fellow citizens expect no less.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey has 6 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Texas has 10 minutes remaining.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis), who is a member--a distinguished member, 
at that--of the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. I want to thank the gentleman from 
New Jersey for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3442, and I do so because 
the bill imposes burdens on Treasury that are totally unnecessary and 
will do absolutely nothing to improve our national debt.
  It is Congress that makes spending and revenue decisions, and it is 
Congress' responsibility to raise the debt limit, when needed, to 
enable Treasury to fulfill the debt obligations that we have made. If 
you owe, you pay.
  Rather than wasting our time on a redundant report by Treasury that 
does nothing to grow the economy, we should focus our time on creating 
jobs and strengthening families.
  I can think of many things that we could be talking about: raising 
the minimum wage, creating summer jobs for youth, creating jobs through 
infrastructure development, supporting businesses to hire more workers, 
and increasing grant aid to families so that they can afford college.
  Although our economy has demonstrated some solid labor market trends, 
we know that there are still individuals who are not benefiting from 
the tremendous economic recovery that we are experiencing.
  For example, the University of Illinois at Chicago just completed a 
study that showed that half the African American males in the city of 
Chicago between the ages of 20-24 are not working and not in school. 
And we could be using this time--our time--to figure out ways to bring 
these individuals into the labor market so that they become productive 
citizens, rather than reviewing another report that tells us nothing 
that we don't already know.
  So I oppose the legislation not because it is such bad legislation, 
but it is just a waste of our time, energy, and effort. We need to be 
figuring out ways to solve problems.
  Mr. MARCHANT. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Renacci), one of my colleagues on the Ways and 
Means Committee.
  Mr. RENACCI. I thank the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3442, the Debt 
Management and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2015.
  This bill isn't about budgets. I have listened today. It is about a 
process, a process to keep our eye on the debt by all Members of 
Congress. Americans want us paying attention to our national debt.
  Our collective debt has now surpassed $19 trillion, which is $58,000 
per American. Sadly, these numbers are only a tip of the iceberg as 
they don't include, as my colleague from Virginia (Mr. Brat) indicated, 
tens of trillions of dollars of unfunded liabilities stemming from some 
of our entitlement programs.

  To me, this is inexcusable. We need an accurate accounting of our 
country's financial health, and this legislation is a sorely needed 
first step only, a first step to start the dialogue in finding a 
solution to this growing problem.
  H.R. 3442 will require the Secretary of the Treasury to provide a 
report to Congress prior to the debt reaching the statutory limit. The 
report must include historic, current, and projected levels of debt, 
the drivers and composition of future debt, and how the United States 
will meet the debt obligations if the debt limit is raised.
  As someone who has spent nearly 30 years in the business world, I 
know the importance of leveraging debt to grow a business and, in this 
case, to move the government forward. I understand that sometimes we 
have to borrow. But if I showed up to a bank without an explanation and 
plan to repay my obligations, I would be laughed out of the building. 
If I told the bank, ``The financial statements are on the Internet,'' 
``I have sent them to you already,'' or, ``You already have them,'' the 
laughing would stop and the debt would be called.
  Why should raising the national debt limit be any different? The 
Treasury should have to present a plan to Congress.
  This straightforward legislation is not divisive. It will apply to 
both Democrat and Republican administrations. It will not even affect 
the current administration.
  Let me be very clear. Our debt is not a Democrat or Republican 
problem. This is an American problem.
  As I travel throughout my district in Ohio, I hear from my 
constituents regarding their concerns about the direction of our 
country and what we are leaving our children and grandchildren. 
Congress must work together to put our national debt back on a 
sustainable path. That is what this legislation starts the process of 
doing.
  I would like to commend Mr. Marchant for his leadership on this 
legislation, and I urge my colleagues to join me in support.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARCHANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Woodall).
  Mr. WOODALL. I thank my friend from Texas for bringing this bill to 
the House.
  I confess, Mr. Chairman, I have served on the Budget Committee since 
I arrived in this House 5 years ago, and I have listened to testimony 
on every single budget the President has submitted to this Congress. 
Among all the calls of the redundancy of this legislation, I want to 
just encourage my colleagues to read the five short pages that are this 
bill. It says this:

       Not more than 60 days and not less than 21 days before the 
     debt ceiling is to be raised, the Secretary of the Treasury 
     shall submit the following: a detailed explanation of 
     proposals of the President to reduce the public debt in the 
     short-term, which is the next fiscal year; the medium term, 
     the next 3 to 5 years; and the long term, the next 10 years.

  Five years I have served in this institution; five budgets of this 
President I have looked at. Not one reduced the debt by one penny this 
year, next year, 10 years from now, or 100 years from now. This is not 
redundant.
  What Mr. Marchant is asking of not this President, but the next 
President, whoever he or she may be, is to not promise the American 
people everything on their children's credit card, that if you are 
going to come to the American people and ask for a credit line increase 
on America's credit card, you ought to offer at least some semblance of 
a plan for paying the bill back.
  I have heard the charge of hypocrisy here on the House floor. Again, 
I serve on the House Budget Committee. Every

[[Page H735]]

single year, this House, Republicans and Democrats, pass budgets that 
balance. Every single year, this House, Republicans and Democrats, pass 
budgets that plan not just to pay back a penny of debt, but all of the 
debt.
  We can't expect less from our next President. We have to expect more. 
Republican or Democrat, the next President, before coming to ask for 
the debt ceiling to be increased, should come with a plan for 
eventually paying that debt back.
  Mr. Chairman, it is embarrassing to me that a clean debt ceiling 
increase is part of the national parlance. I have got seventh, eighth 
and ninth graders back home who know what a clean debt ceiling is.
  We should never have a clean debt ceiling increase. We should never 
raise the American people's credit line without a plan for paying it 
back. Not once, Mr. Chairman, have we considered a bill on the floor of 
this House that has the requirement that Mr. Marchant is proposing 
today.
  The burden will fall on us to implement it, but leadership falls to 
the White House as well. Don't come and ask the American people for 
more money until you come with a plan for eventually balancing the 
books. That is not too much to ask, Mr. Chairman. In fact, it is too 
little to ask, but it is a fantastic first start.
  I ask all of my colleagues to support this bill.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman on the other side has no 
more speakers, I am prepared to close.
  Mr. MARCHANT. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PASCRELL. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, from a few speakers today on the other side, I have 
heard ``Apocalypse Now.'' Both sides of the aisle, I think, want to get 
to a day when we balance the budget. We did it several years in a row 
at the end of the Clinton administration.
  I believe my friends on the other side of the aisle are well-
intentioned in drafting this legislation. I believe they wanted to 
focus attention on the ways to address our debt and deficit. I agree. I 
believe that instead of toying with default--because that sends a 
horrible, horrible message to the world economy--we should do our job 
as Members and discuss real, long-term solutions to our budgetary 
challenges.
  In fact, I think my good friend from Texas would agree we had an 
outstanding discussion in the Rules Committee because I never heard 
that discussion on the floor of the House. Maybe I missed it. I don't 
know; did I miss it?
  Our discretionary spending, which we use to make critical investments 
in the infrastructure, education, and laying a foundation for our 
Nation's future for our kids and our grandkids' economic growth, that 
discretionary spending is at the lowest level since 1940. Even the 
gentleman from Virginia, who started to refer to it anyway, said a few 
moments ago, only talked about 30 percent discretionary money. But it 
was wrong what he said. We have not done anything to our insurance 
programs or entitlements.
  The Affordable Care Act here rears its head again, extending Medicare 
for 12 more years. I think that is a pretty big deal in talking about 
one of these mandatory costs that we have, 12 years more because of the 
Affordable Care Act.
  By the way, if you get rid of the Affordable Care Act, what are you 
going to do with the people who don't have insurance anymore? What are 
you going to do about the 12 years we have extended for Medicare? 
Perhaps that is all in this phantom budget we have out there.
  Cost increases moving forward will be driven by mandatory programs--
you know it, and I know it--like Social Security and Medicare, mostly 
due to an aging population. We started to address this problem with the 
Affordable Care Act. We have a long ways to go.
  Many Members of this body have reasonable proposals to address the 
growing cost of health care and Social Security on both sides of the 
aisle. So I believe we would be better served working together and 
debating together than sitting here today talking about another report 
that tells us what we already know.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARCHANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for the continued debate on the 
bill. This bill is very simple. The bill does not try to talk about the 
past. It doesn't try to address the Reagan administration or the 
Clinton administration or the Bush administration or the Obama 
administration.
  It tries to look forward and say that the Secretary of the Treasury, 
21 to 60 days before he announces that we will reach the debt ceiling--
in this case, next year it will be March of 2017, so about this time 
next year--if this bill is made law, the Secretary of the Treasury will 
appear before the Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance 
Committee--they could meet jointly--and give a plan from the 
administration on what the administration intends to do about the 
national debt.
  It is important to know what the intentions of the current 
administration are about the national debt. The report will first 
provide a detailed accounting of the state of the national debt. It 
would include the composition and trajectory of the debt as well as the 
administration's plans to meet the obligations in the event that 
Congress agrees to raise the debt.
  Second, it would just say here is the administration's proposal to 
reduce the debt in the short term, the medium term, and the long term. 
The answer from the administration may very well be we have no 
intention whatsoever of addressing the debt in the short term, the 
medium term, or the long term. If that is what the Treasury Secretary 
wants to report to Congress, that could be his report.
  Third, if the administration requests subsequent debt-limit 
increases, the Secretary would be required to provide a progress report 
on prior debt reduction proposals.
  Finally, the bill would require the Treasury to put all these 
documents online so the American people can read the report for 
themselves.
  The Nation owes $19 trillion. The debt is growing every second. 
Addressing the debt is a shared responsibility, and we should use all 
available tools to manage this responsibility.
  This type of process is not new. In fact, today, the Chairman of the 
Federal Reserve is appearing before the Senate and earlier this week 
appeared before the House. Under the Humphrey-Hawkins Act, it required 
the Federal Reserve Chairman to appear before Congress to give a 
statement on monetary policy. I don't think it is too much to ask for 
one meeting a year for the Secretary of the Treasury to come to 
Congress and state his or her opinion and view about the national debt 
and the administration's plan on how it plans to reduce the debt.
  In fact, this bill would be a simple, first step to addressing that 
problem. I urge the House to pass this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as read.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 3442

       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 ``Debt Management and Fiscal 
     Responsibility Act of 2015''.

     SEC. 2. SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY REPORT TO CONGRESS BEFORE 
                   REACHING DEBT LIMIT.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 31 of title 31, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 3131. Report before reaching debt limit

       ``(a) In General.--Not more than sixty days and not less 
     than twenty-one days prior to any date on which the Secretary 
     of the Treasury anticipates the public debt will reach the 
     limit specified under section 3101, as modified by section 
     3101A, the Secretary shall appear before the Committee on 
     Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Finance of the Senate, to submit the information 
     described under subsection (b).
       ``(b) Information Required To Be Presented.--In an 
     appearance described under subsection (a), the Secretary 
     shall submit the following:

[[Page H736]]

       ``(1) Debt report.--A report on the state of the public 
     debt, including--
       ``(A) the historical levels of the debt, current amount and 
     composition of the debt, and future projections of the debt;
       ``(B) the drivers and composition of future debt; and
       ``(C) how, if the debt limit is raised, the United States 
     will meet debt obligations, including principal and interest.
       ``(2) Statement of intent.--A detailed explanation of--
       ``(A) proposals of the President to reduce the public debt 
     in the short term (the current and following fiscal year), 
     medium term (approximately three to five fiscal years), and 
     long term (approximately ten fiscal years), and proposals of 
     the President to adjust the debt-to-gross domestic product 
     ratio;
       ``(B) the impact an increased debt limit will have on 
     future Government spending, debt service, and the position of 
     the United States dollar as the international reserve 
     currency; and
       ``(C) projections of fiscal health and sustainability of 
     major direct-spending entitlement programs (including Social 
     Security, Medicare, and Medicaid).
       ``(3) Progress report.--
       ``(A) In general.--A detailed report on the progress of 
     implementing all proposals of the President described under 
     subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2).
       ``(B) Exception.--The report described under this paragraph 
     shall only be submitted if a Secretary has already appeared 
     at least once pursuant to this section during any term of 
     office for a particular President.
       ``(c) Public Access to Information.--The Secretary of the 
     Treasury shall place on the homepage of the Department of the 
     Treasury a link to a webpage that shall serve as a repository 
     of information made available to the public for at least 6 
     months following the date of release of the relevant 
     information, including:
       ``(1) The debt report submitted under subsection (b)(1).
       ``(2) The detailed explanation submitted under subsection 
     (b)(2).
       ``(3) The progress report submitted under subsection 
     (b)(3).
       ``(4) Such other information as the Secretary reasonably 
     believes is necessary or helpful to the public in 
     understanding the statutory debt limit, Government debt, and 
     the reports and explanations described under paragraphs (1), 
     (2), and (3).''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of analysis for chapter 
     31 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to section 3130 the following:

``3131. Report before reaching debt limit.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to the bill shall be in order except 
those printed in part A of House Report 114-420. Each such amendment 
may be offered only in the order printed in the report, by a Member 
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be 
debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and 
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to 
amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
question.


                Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Grijalva

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in part A of House Report 114-420.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 4, after line 3, insert the following:
       ``(B) the historical levels of Federal revenue, including 
     corporate and individual Federal income taxes as a percent of 
     the gross domestic product;''.
       Page 4, line 4, strike ``(B)'' and insert ``(C)''.
       Page 4, line 6, strike ``(C)'' and insert ``(D)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 609, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, my amendment simply asks that, in the 
spirit of this bill and the context of examining the debt, we take a 
look at Federal revenue trends, which are a critical part of the 
conversation we are having. Specifically, this amendment asks Treasury 
to include in their report the historical levels of Federal revenue, 
including information on corporate and individual Federal income taxes.
  While we may disagree on the merits of the underlying bill, I hope 
that we can agree that it is important to have a complete picture of 
the Federal budget when looking at debt and deficit issues. When we 
look closer at our current revenue policies, a fuller picture emerges. 
This picture could change our perspective on the need to cut programs 
that Americans hold so high and, instead, raise questions about the 
need to close loopholes that prevent us from investing in areas of the 
budget that support the middle class and working families.
  Here are a few reasons that we may want to consider changes to this 
conversation:
  Corporations used to contribute $1 out of every $3 in Federal 
revenue. Today, it is $1 out of every $10. At the same time, 
corporations are more profitable than almost ever before.
  American taxpayers are losing about $90 billion every year due to 
offshore tax loopholes.
  In the 1950s, corporate taxes were about 6 percent of the economy. 
Today, they are 1.9 percent.
  All in all, Federal revenue contributed by corporate taxes has 
dropped by two-thirds over the last six decades.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would also allow Treasury to look at 
individual tax rates so that we can examine if the wealthy are really 
paying their fair share. Currently, many tax loopholes are reserved for 
wealthy Americans. These tax giveaways are leaving the middle class to 
pick up their tab.
  Some multimillionaires and billionaires are paying a lower effective 
tax rate than the average American family. This is wrong. Hard work 
should never be taxed at a higher rate than making money off Wall 
Street.
  Our Tax Code is full of tax loopholes and tax breaks benefiting big 
corporations and the rich. When they don't pay their fair share of the 
taxes, the rest of us pick up the tab. American families end up paying 
higher taxes or getting fewer services, and the country goes deeper 
into debt.
  If corporations and the rich paid their fair share, then the economy 
will work better for everyone. Instead of making seniors pay more for 
Medicare or cutting Social Security benefits, we should close loopholes 
that allow large corporations to hide profits offshore. Instead of 
cutting funding for repairing our roads and bridges, we should end huge 
tax subsidies to oil and gas companies making record profits. Instead 
of cutting funding for teachers and firefighters, we should ask 
multimillionaires and billionaires to pay at least as high a tax rate 
as those public servants pay.
  America's richest corporations should not be able to dodge fair taxes 
to pay lower rates than middle class families.
  It is time to address corporate tax dodging and invest in America 
again. If we close these tax loopholes for corporations that ship jobs 
overseas and hide profits offshore, we can raise billions of dollars to 
invest in America. We could make our classrooms less crowded, improve 
roads and bridges, and provide more security for the American people.
  Unfortunately, the bill we are voting on today leaves out this entire 
conversation and, instead, offers false choices of austerity or 
default.
  Please, I hope my colleagues will join me in asking for a fuller 
picture of our tax policies by supporting this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARCHANT. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although 
I am not opposed to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, gentleman from Texas is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MARCHANT. Mr. Chairman, this amendment to H.R. 3442 brings very 
valuable information and transparency to the debt-limit process. The 
amendment offered by Mr. Grijalva would strengthen the legislation by 
requiring the administration to report additional information on 
Federal taxes and revenue.
  However, I will note that revenues are above their historical average 
as a share of GDP, so the problem surrounding the unsustainable 
trajectory of our national debt isn't that Americans are not taxed 
enough; it is that Washington spends too much.
  With that said, I support the text of the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).

[[Page H737]]

  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Huelskamp

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in part A of House Report 114-420.
  Mr. HUELSKAMP. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 4, line 5, strike ``and''.
       Page 4, line 8, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
       Page 4, after line 8, insert the following:
       ``(D) any reduction measures the Secretary intends to take 
     to fund Federal Government obligations if the debt limit is 
     not raised, including--
       ``(i) notifying the Congress when the limit has been 
     reached; and
       ``(ii) notifying the Congress when the Secretary has begun 
     taking such measures and specifying which measures are 
     currently being used.''.
       Page 4, line 21, strike ``and''.
       Page 4, line 25, strike the period and insert ``: and''.
       Page 4, after line 25, insert the following:
       ``(D) the plan of the President for each week that the debt 
     of the United States Government is at the statutory limit, to 
     publicly disclose, on the website of the Department of the 
     Treasury, the following:
       ``(i) All reduction measures currently being used by the 
     Secretary to avoid defaulting on obligations of the 
     Government.
       ``(ii) With respect to each reduction measure, whether or 
     not such measure is currently being used--

       ``(I) the total dollar amount of such measure that has been 
     used; and
       ``(II) the total dollar amount of such measure that the 
     Secretary estimates is still available for use.

       ``(iii) The date on which the Secretary estimates that all 
     reduction measures will be exhausted, and the Government will 
     begin defaulting on its obligations.''.
       Page 6, after line 2, insert the following:
       ``(d) Reduction Measures Defined.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term `reduction measures' means each of the 
     following:
       ``(1) Directing or approving the issuance of debt by the 
     Federal Financing Bank for the purpose of entering into an 
     exchange transaction for debt that is subject to the limit 
     under this section.
       ``(2) Suspending investments in the Government Securities 
     Investment Fund of the Thrift Savings Fund.
       ``(3) Suspending investments in the stabilization fund 
     established under section 5302 of title 31, United States 
     Code.
       ``(4) Suspending new investments in the Civil Service 
     Retirement and Disability Fund or the Postal Service Retiree 
     Health Benefits Fund.
       ``(5) Selling or redeeming securities, obligations, or 
     other invested assets of the Civil Service Retirement and 
     Disability Fund or the Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits 
     Fund before maturity.
       ``(6) Such other measures as the Secretary determines 
     appropriate.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 609, the gentleman 
from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas.
  Mr. HUELSKAMP. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to offer 
this amendment on a very important bill, and I appreciate the work of 
the gentleman from Texas. I believe the bill is necessary. My 
amendment, hopefully, will provide some additional information.
  As we know, Congress has the authority to set the debt limit. The 
President, through the Secretary of the Treasury, however, has the 
apparent authority to set the date to which all the cable networks peg 
their doomsday countdown clocks. We saw this firsthand in 2011 and 
2013.
  Even if receipts, expenditures, or use of extraordinary measures 
change their internal projections of the exhaustion date, Treasury is 
not required in any way to provide regular, independently verifiable 
updates to Congress or the American people. Instead, the elected 
officials charged with making the ultimate decision on increasing the 
Nation's maxed-out credit card are expected to simply take Treasury's 
word for it--sometimes months after an initial estimate.
  My proposed amendment is very simple. It would require that Treasury 
provide a weekly reporting of the extraordinary measures and the 
projected exhaustion date per our Nation's debt limit.

                              {time}  1445

  It is a matter of transparency. But it is also exactly the 
information we need as Members of Congress to fulfill our 
constitutional responsibility on this issue.
  Consider just how long the use of extraordinary measures lasted in 
2015. They were originally utilized on March 15, yet the Treasury set 
November 3 as the date of exhaustion--over 7 months later. That 
creates, I believe, a lot of uncertainty, and Treasury continues to 
control the entire process. Transparency is always a better policy.
  Mr. Chairman, to further illustrate why this is needed, just last 
week, a report was issued by the House Financial Services Committee 
that found that apparently the Department misled Congress regarding 
their capabilities and plans concerning debt payments back in 2011 and 
2013.
  Without going into too much detail, the findings of the report, I 
believe, are clear. The Treasury did not report to Congress the 
specific actions they could take once the debt limit is reached.
  I urge the House to support my amendment to help ensure the American 
people and Congress are equipped to make informed judgments on this 
critical issue of the Federal debt limit.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, Democrats don't want to default. We 
believe we should get our deficits under control now and not at the 
moment of default.
  I believe my Republican colleagues continue to run from deadline to 
deadline, creating great anxiety. I don't know if you all noticed how 
the markets are reacting today with the situation in Europe and in 
China. We are not doing so well, yet we continue this notion of 
bringing back before the people, before the world, the notion that we 
will have a default someday and we will prioritize the payment of 
default, creating the notion or the idea that somehow the U.S. 
Government might even default on its bills someday. That in and of 
itself is very destabilizing, and we will have an amendment coming up a 
little later on this afternoon.
  In fact, this President--our President--has a proposal in his budget 
to cut an additional $3 trillion from our Nation's deficit on top of 
the $4 trillion in deficit reduction that has already been enacted into 
law. In fact, this President--President Obama--cut the $1 trillion Bush 
deficit in half--in more than half--in 4\1/2\ years.
  America is moving forward. But the underlying issue is the 
Republicans are afraid that if they allow the White House to come here 
to the Hill in the form of a budget director to testify on the budget, 
these pesky little facts will become more commonly known to the 
American people.
  I only have last year's Republican budget to go by--I wait with bated 
breath for the 2016 budget to come out--but all I have is the 2015 
budget. Although there is some transparency that would make cuts in 
order to balance the budget--they make cuts in Social Security, they 
make cuts in Medicare, they make cuts in Medicaid and other health--
they would entirely eliminate the Affordable Care Act. We all know what 
complications come with that--no pre-screening; if you are under 26, 
you would no longer have your parents' insurance; those who already 
have preexisting conditions would be discriminated against by insurance 
companies. We know all the bad things that you all want to see come to 
fruition.
  But then you also have another less transparent line that says: other 
mandatory cuts, to the tune of $1.1 trillion. You don't spell out what 
that means. But I would imagine--and I have to assume--it would mean 
making mandatory cuts to our veterans, to military personnel, and to 
Federal employees, just to name a few. To get $1.1 trillion in 
additional cuts, those are where the cuts would come from.
  That may be your platform--you want to make cuts in veterans, in 
military personnel, and in Federal employees. Those are cuts you are 
going to propose. You should just make it more transparent. The 
American people are looking for transparency. They want the debate. We 
know the cuts you are ready to propose right now in terms of Social 
Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the Affordable Care Act.

[[Page H738]]

  Let's be honest, you want to cut military and Federal employee 
pensions, but you are not spelling it out here. I wonder how the folks 
nearby in Virginia or in Maryland feel about the cuts you want to make 
in Federal employee pensions. You don't actually spell it out in your 
budget. You call it ``other mandatory cuts.''
  The American people should assume what that means. We are just trying 
to give a little more transparency to what your cuts actually mean. 
They mean cuts to military and Federal employee pensions. Just a little 
honesty, just a little transparency. That is what the American people 
are looking for.
  Democrats oppose the GOP plans of threatening default or the Pay 
China First Act bill, which means no Social Security checks, if that 
were to go into effect, no doctor reimbursements from serving Medicare 
patients, and it calls into question the paying of our troops. What it 
really does, though, is it calls into question what we have prided 
ourselves on as Americans, and that is that we pay our debts. We don't 
even create the suspicion.
  Alexander Hamilton is rolling in his grave today because you are even 
creating the suspicion that you would not pay the American people's 
debts. We have an obligation to do our work, to do our business, not 
for shenanigans, but to get the people's work done. Mr. Chairman, I 
would suggest that this bill doesn't really further or advance getting 
the people's work done. It is just creating more bureaucracy and more 
time on the floor taking up more precious time in debate, but that is 
where we are at.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUELSKAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Marchant).
  Mr. MARCHANT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  This amendment that Mr. Huelskamp has offered requires the 
administration to report on extraordinary measures on a weekly basis so 
that Congress will have the most up-to-date information available.
  I can tell you that at the very heart of this bill, as I began to put 
it together a couple of years ago, was the very fact that through a 
press release the Secretary of Treasury could come out and pick some 
date out of midair and say we were going to reach the debt ceiling. 
Then we would go month after month after month not knowing whether he 
would come out again with another press release that says: Well, it 
will be next week.
  It is my opinion--and I agree with Mr. Huelskamp--that the Secretary 
of Treasury needs to inform Congress what extraordinary measures he or 
she is using that week to extend the debt limit deadline.
  It is a great amendment, and it adds to the bill.
  Mr. HUELSKAMP. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate support from the gentleman 
from Texas, I appreciate support from the Ways and Means Committee, and 
I certainly appreciate the comments across the aisle of the need for 
transparency.
  We are an information vacuum on this issue as Members of Congress and 
the American people. This simply requires a weekly report so folks 
outside of the Department of Treasury know what is happening with our 
Nation's credit line.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Newhouse

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in part A of House Report 114-420.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 4, line 5, strike ``and''.
       Page 4, line 8, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
       Page 4, after line 8, insert the following:
       ``(D) if the President recommends that Congress adopt, in 
     general, a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of 
     the United States to help control the accumulation of future 
     debt.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 609, the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Newhouse) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, it is very fitting today that we are 
considering this bill. It is the same week that the President released 
the final budget of his administration--a budget that would add nearly 
$2.6 trillion to our national debt over the next 5 years. In fact, this 
President has never submitted a budget to Congress that would balance.
  Few Americans may realize this, but just last week, our national debt 
reached $19 trillion--Mr. Chairman, $19 trillion. When the President 
came into office in 2009, the debt stood at $10.6 trillion. That is 
nearly doubling our national debt in just 7 years' time.
  Mr. Chairman, we are on a high-speed train, careening towards a 
fiscal cliff. Soon it may be too late to slow this train down.
  If I could, in the name of all that is fiscally sane, I would enact 
an amendment to the Constitution right now requiring us to balance our 
budget. But, unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, our Constitution requires 
two-thirds of our colleagues here in Congress to approve that 
amendment, which history and previous votes on constitutional 
amendments have shown is a very difficult bar to reach. While this 
measure may not be the balanced budget amendment that our country 
desperately needs and deserves, it will help draw a very clear line of 
distinction in the sand.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment that my colleagues from Virginia and Ohio 
and Alabama and I are offering would simply require the President to 
tell the American people whether or not they support a balanced budget 
amendment when he or she asks for a debt ceiling increase. It is as 
simple as that. This is about transparency and about being open with 
the American people about where you stand on this very critical issue.
  It would provide a very clear contrast if the President asked to 
raise the debt ceiling by trillions of dollars in this case, but offers 
no support for a measure that would put an end to our Nation's debt 
problems for good.
  Make no mistake, time is quickly coming when our Nation will have to 
make the decision if we want to restore the fiscal health of our Nation 
to a state of stability and prosperity for future generations, or go 
down the same road of nations like Greece that have been shattered by 
their debt woes. When that day comes, the American people deserve to 
know who is standing where.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Jenkins of West Virginia). The gentleman from 
New York is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have three children. I hate it when they 
come to me on Sunday night and say: Dad, I have a paper due tomorrow, 
can you help me out with it? In many respects that is how I feel my 
Republican colleagues are treating government today. They are like 
children that need to be forced to do their homework, forced to do 
their job, and they are doing it always at the last minute.
  In many respects, some of the amendments we are talking about today 
are memorializing the notion of running government from deadline to 
deadline. We really shouldn't be doing that. You don't make good 
judgments. I dare say that my children's papers aren't as good when 
they wait until the last minute to do them, and I suspect that maybe we 
don't run government when we go from deadline to deadline. We shouldn't 
run our government this way.
  Democrats have taken the action to lower the deficit and restore the 
economy. Democrats don't want to default. I believe we should get our 
deficit under control now and not the moment of default. I know I may 
sound a little bit like the gentleman running for President, Mr. Rubio, 
because I am going to be repeating myself a little bit here, but I 
think some of the facts bear repeating.
  That is where the President again has proposed $3 trillion in deficit 
reduction on top of the $4 trillion in deficit reduction that has 
already been enacted into law. Again, this President

[[Page H739]]

cut the $1 trillion Bush deficits by more than half in just 4\1/2\ 
years.
  America is moving forward. America doesn't need to be great again. We 
already are great. We have the ability to deal with our fiscal problems 
if we stop doing it from deadline to deadline and address them in a 
smart and healthy way.
  The underlying issue is Republicans are afraid that if they are 
allowed to bring the White House again here before us today to testify 
on their budget that they have proposed, that again pesky facts will 
get in the way. I will just point them out again.

                              {time}  1500

  We have a little yellow line going through it here.
  Other mandatory cuts in the Republican budget are to the tune of $1.1 
trillion. Again, I don't know exactly what they are, but I can only 
assume that those cuts are to the military personnel's and veterans' 
pensions and to Federal employees' pensions.
  I don't know how many fellow employees who live in the Virginia area, 
for instance, are paying attention to the debate today or how many of 
those who live in Maryland are paying attention to the debate today. I 
suspect, if they are, they are a little concerned about this one line 
that is highlighted, because it would include, under the Republican 
budget for 2016, mandatory cuts to veterans', to military personnel's, 
and to Federal employees' pensions. I just think we need to be more 
open about what those cuts would be to balance the Republican budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I have nothing personal against the person who is 
offering the amendment. Again, I just think it further moves forward 
this notion that we are going to continue to operate the government 
deadline to deadline. The American people are sick and tired of the 
government's operating in this way. They want a more thoughtful 
government. This is not an answer to that.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Marchant).
  Mr. MARCHANT. Mr. Chairman, this amendment offered by Mr. Newhouse 
would absolutely strengthen H.R. 3442.
  By requiring the Secretary of the Treasury to report to Congress 
information on the debt ceiling, the President recommends that the 
Congress adopt a balanced budget amendment. This would add more clarity 
to the process. Therefore, I recommend to the Members that they vote 
``yes.''
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chair, once again, I would suggest that my 
Republican colleagues need to be more clear, more transparent.
  The gentleman just mentioned transparency. The Republican budget is 
begging for transparency. The American people want to know exactly what 
is meant by ``other mandatory cuts to the tune of $1.1 trillion.'' 
Where do those cuts end up being made? Again, I can only suggest it is 
to veterans', to military personnel's, and to Federal employees' 
pensions.
  People living in the greater Metropolitan Washington, D.C., area, 
those who live down by Norfolk, Virginia, and other heavy military as 
well as governmental personnel areas, have to question--and I hope they 
are questioning--what the Republicans mean by those mandatory cuts. I 
believe it means veterans', military personnel's, and Federal 
employees' pensions will be cut if the Republican budget is enacted 
into law.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, in closing, this is a very simple 
amendment that just requires the administration to state whether or not 
it would recommend that Congress adopt a balanced budget when it asks 
for a debt ceiling increase. Our national debt is one of the biggest 
threats that exists to our Nation. The American people need to know 
where the administration is and where Congress is on this important 
issue.
  When the President ran in 2008, he promised that his administration 
would be the most transparent administration yet. This helps him keep 
that promise. Today, it is all about transparency--letting people know 
where we stand.
  I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this important amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse).
  The amendment was agreed to.


            Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Kelly of Illinois

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in part A of House Report 114-420.
  Ms. KELLY of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 4, line 5, strike ``and''.
       Page 4, line 8, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
       Page 4, after line 8, insert the following:
       ``(D) an economic forecast of the negative consequences of 
     failing to raise the debt limit, including costs associated 
     with public health and safety.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 609, the gentlewoman 
from Illinois (Ms. Kelly) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Illinois.
  Ms. KELLY of Illinois. Mr. Chair, my amendment is simple. It merely 
expands the report the Treasury Secretary must submit per the 
underlying bill to include an analysis of the economic costs of failing 
to raise the debt limit, especially with regard to the costs to our 
Nation's public health and safety.
  I agree with my friends on the other side of the aisle that misguided 
deficit spending poses a serious risk to our Nation's long-term 
financial stability. It is crucial that we get our fiscal house in 
order. Simply raising the debt limit without discussing strategic ways 
to increase revenues and cut costs is unacceptable. Equally 
unacceptable is not acknowledging the serious short- and long-term 
costs of failing to raise the debt limit, causing the country to enter 
into default.
  Federal tax dollars fund a variety of programs in every single one of 
our congressional districts, programs that are essential to the 
continued well-being of our constituents. Seniors rely on Social 
Security checks and on Medicare reimbursements. Veterans depend on 
their much-needed VA benefits. State and municipal police forces 
receive funding through Department of Justice grants. Our Nation's 
hospitals receive Federal tax dollars.
  It is not an exaggeration to say, if the United States of America 
defaulted on its loan obligations and if it could not pay its bills for 
expenses already incurred, the health and safety of its citizens would 
be put at risk. If America were to enter into default, what would 
happen? Would the Social Security Administration be able to cut checks? 
How many Americans would be unable to obtain essential medications? 
Would the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the TSA, or State and 
local police units furlough agents and officers? How many fewer cops 
would be on the beat to keep our communities safe?
  All too often, our debates in Washington about the national debt and 
deficit are not grounded in reality. We simply analyze economic 
concepts in the abstract, but our decisions and our debates have real, 
immediate, and lasting impacts on the daily lives of our constituents.
  If we are going to engage in a discussion on the pros and cons of 
raising the debt ceiling, let's keep in mind the real, on-the-ground 
consequences that the decisions will have on everyday Americans.
  If we are going to require the Treasury Secretary to report on the 
costs of the growing national debt, let's be fair and require that the 
report discuss the immediate and lasting costs of failing to raise the 
debt ceiling on our Nation's public health and safety.
  The bill's author, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Marchant), stated 
his goal was to have a comprehensive discussion of the debt ceiling. A 
comprehensive discussion must include not only the long-term costs of 
continued deficit spending, but the short-term costs of default, as 
well as its far-reaching ripple effects.

[[Page H740]]

  This amendment is one of common sense and is intellectually honest 
and fair. It would have zero budgetary impact, and it would ensure the 
report is as meaningful as possible; so I urge my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle to support it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARCHANT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman's 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MARCHANT. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would require the 
administration to speculate on the impact of default on our Federal 
debt. It doesn't call for any specific report. It doesn't call for any 
specific numbers.
  It is not the point of H.R. 3442 to speculate. H.R. 3442 is a 
sensible step in creating a process to consider the debt limit with 
information and transparency. I do not feel like this amendment gives 
any support to that priority.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Kelly).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. KELLY of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Illinois 
will be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Duffy

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in part A of House Report 114-420.
  Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 4, line 21, strike ``and''.
       Page 4, line 25, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
       Page 4, after line 25, add the following:
       ``(D) whether the Administration acknowledges that it is 
     technologically capable of paying only principal and interest 
     on the national debt, as opposed to other obligations, in the 
     event that the debt limit, as specified under section 3101, 
     is reached.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 609, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. DUFFY. I thank the gentleman from Texas for all of his good work 
on this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, as all of us know in this institution and around the 
country, we are $19 trillion in debt. We borrow around $3.8 billion a 
day, and we spend about $250 billion a year to service our debt. One of 
the tools that we have in this Congress is the debt limit in order to 
get the administration to help reform the way we spend.
  In 2011, Congress challenged President Obama. When he asked to have 
an increase in the debt limit, we said let's have a decrease in how 
much money we spend. As a political fight played out, the 
administration promised that chaos would ensue across the global 
markets if the debt limit were reached, and it also said that any 
proposal that would prioritize payments through the Treasury for 
principal and interest on our debt could not be taken seriously. Mr. 
McClintock had a bill that would have done just that.
  The Committee on Financial Services, the committee on which I serve, 
did an investigation, and we found that, though they said Mr. 
McClintock's bill could not be taken seriously, they actually had a 
plan to do just what Mr. McClintock had recommended, which is, if the 
debt limit is reached, prioritize payments. They weren't being honest 
with the American people, because what they wanted to do was to use the 
argument of chaos to put pressure on Republicans to cave and not demand 
that we reform the way that we spend.
  My amendment here today is very simple. All it says is let's make 
sure that the Treasury comes clean and tells the American people 
whether it can pay principal and interest before other obligations so 
that America does not default on its debt. It is very simple. No one 
here wants to hit the debt limit, and no one wants us to be the next 
Greece or Puerto Rico, but that is going to take working together in 
order to make sure we have budgets that balance at some point in the 
future.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chair, as I read it, this amendment requires the 
Treasury to notify Congress about which obligations it would be able to 
pay were Congress to choose to default and prioritize debt as a vision 
in the Pay China First bill, which the House has twice passed on a 
party-line vote.
  First, a bill that plans for default sends a very disturbing signal 
to the world economy. Here is what we have with us: the gentleman, 
apparently, through the Speaker and the sponsor of this bill, in good 
faith, wants to pay China first before vets, before Medicare payments, 
before salaries for our troops, et cetera. The gentleman wants to pay 
China first. Of all of the people lined up who are going to get paid, 
the gentleman wants to pay China first. Excuse me for repeating myself.
  The intent of the amendment is to accuse the Treasury of deceiving 
Congress about its ability to prioritize debt payments. The Treasury 
does not currently have the capability to prioritize between types of 
payments in the event it does not have enough cash on hand to pay all 
of the bills due on a particular date. That is how it works.

                              {time}  1515

  In such an event, Treasury would likely hold all of its bills until 
it has enough cash on hand to pay those bills. This would repeat daily 
in a cascading fashion. The result would be disastrous, a first-time 
immediate default on U.S. credit.
  Let me repeat the 14th Amendment. It is clear, simple, and concise. 
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution, section 4, says:
  ``The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by 
law''--that is us--``including debts incurred for payment of pensions . 
. . shall not be questioned.''
  I think that to even entertain the idea of default is 
counterproductive. To entertain the idea sends a real message to the 
financial markets all over the world, including our own. I think that 
is a disturbing thing. I don't think you want it, and I don't think we 
want it.
  Now, when you look at how the debt was incurred, when you look at 
that graph about what contributed to this $19 trillion, zillion, 
gabillion dollars, you are talking about, it could be very interesting 
in case of history--history is important here. History 101--what 
contributed to that debt: two wars unpaid for, two tax cuts in 2001 and 
2003 unpaid for, plan B Medicare prescription drugs unpaid for.
  Look, we passed legislation on this floor. We are all culpable here, 
Democrats and Republicans. So when you stand up and pontificate--you 
don't have to be in a Presidential election either--and you pontificate 
about those guys simply want to tax and spend, you have short memories. 
You have selective memories. We have that at times, too, ourselves on 
our side.
  Well, you are talking about something pretty darn fundamental, and 
that is the budget, and that is the deficit of this country. This is an 
absolutely unnecessary amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I remind the gentleman from New Jersey 
that there is no such thing as a gazillion dollars. Having said that, 
we are talking real money here. We are talking trillions of dollars in 
debt, no doubt.
  I think the gentleman made reference, as well, to the Constitution 
and spelled out that we shouldn't even hint at the notion of not paying 
our debt; yet that is exactly what this amendment would do, similar to 
legislation that passed here last year and the year before that that 
would suggest that maybe the United States won't pay its bills. That is 
not going to happen.
  Even in your own budget, you would raise the debt ceiling by $3 
trillion in order to pass your budget. So you know you are going to 
raise--if you had your druthers, you would raise the debt ceiling as 
well.

[[Page H741]]

  I think the gentleman from Wisconsin also had to understand that 
these are debts that are already owed, not future debts. They are debts 
we already owe that we have to pay back to make sure the world 
understands the U.S. pays its debts.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from New Jersey has 
expired.
  Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chairman, I would just note that this bill guarantees 
that we pay our debt. That is exactly what this bill does. So I would 
note that the Democrats are making the argument for me.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, the law that established the Treasury 
Department already instructs it to manage the revenue to support the 
public credit. This already includes prioritizing payments to assure 
the national debt is always honored, as the Constitution commands. 
Without this, a stalemate on the debt could endanger the Nation's 
credit.
  Well, during recent debates over raising the debt limit, the Treasury 
Department denied that it can prioritize to preserve the Nation's 
credit. Thanks to the Financial Services Committee's investigation, we 
now know this was a deliberate and calculated lie told to increase 
pressure on Congress. Emails revealed that Federal Reserve officials 
were incredulous and appalled that the administration would make such 
statements because they ran a severe risk of panicking credit markets.
  This amendment simply requires that, when we approach the debt limit, 
the Treasury Department tells Congress and the public what it is 
actually preparing to do to assure this Nation's creditors that their 
loans to this government are completely secure.
  Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Messer), someone who has worked very hard on this issue as well.
  Mr. MESSER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this important 
amendment.
  Frankly, the opposition to this amendment is baffling. During the 
debt ceiling debate last year, the administration repeatedly told 
Congress and the American people that, if we don't raise the debt 
ceiling, we would default on our Nation's bills, that the seniors would 
miss their Social Security checks, that interest on the debt would go 
unpaid, and that it would all bring the U.S. economy to its knees. 
This, as it turns out, wasn't true.
  Contrary to their posturing, recently exposed documents have shown 
that the administration was planning to prioritize payments in the 
event the debt ceiling was reached, the very thing they told us they 
couldn't do. This is beyond partisan politics. It is fear-mongering.
  Very simply, my colleague's amendment requires this administration 
and future administrations to acknowledge their ability to prioritize 
payments after hitting the debt limit. It is a good idea.
  I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. DUFFY. May I ask the chairman how much time I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 5 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chairman, I would just note that $800 billion from 
ObamaCare to Medicare came from Democrats; $250 billion a year in 
interest goes to China.
  Let's balance the budget. I would love to see the Democrats' plan to 
balance.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin 
will be postponed.


                 amendment no. 6 offered by mr. messer

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in part A of House Report 114-420.
  Mr. MESSER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 4, line 21, strike ``and''.
       Page 4, line 25, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
       Page 4, after line 25, insert the following:
       ``(D) any extraordinary measures the Secretary intends to 
     take to fund Federal government obligations if the debt limit 
     is not raised, a projection of how long such extraordinary 
     measures will fund the Federal government, and a projection 
     of the administrative cost of taking such extraordinary 
     measures.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 609, the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Messer) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. MESSER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Texas (Mr. 
Marchant) for his great work on this important bill, a bill that seeks 
to make the administration accountable for the out-of-control national 
debt which others have said just hit a staggering $19 trillion.
  Mr. Chairman, like the underlying legislation, the amendment I am 
offering today holds this administration and future administrations 
accountable, too. Many don't realize the enormous power Congress has 
given to the Treasury Department to use so-called extraordinary 
measures when we are about to hit the debt ceiling.
  To pay our bills and delay hitting the debt limit, Treasury has the 
authority to take more than $350 billion out of government accounts, 
including government worker pension and retirement accounts. This is an 
incredible power, shifting around hundreds of billions of taxpayer 
dollars and dodging the limit Congress has placed on borrowing.
  Our Constitution says that Congress, not the administration, has the 
power of the purse. So these extraordinary measures, which in effect 
enable the Department to run up bills or IOUs beyond the debt limit, 
should be transparent. Congress and the American people have the right 
to know what Treasury is doing with our money. At present, it is 
astonishing how little transparency the Department is statutorily 
obligated to provide.
  Very simply, my amendment requires the Treasury to report on what 
extraordinary measures it intends to use if the debt limit is not 
lifted. It requires them to project how long such measures will fund 
the Federal Government so Congress and the American people know well 
before we near the limit how long those measures will last.
  It requires the Treasury Department to estimate the administrative 
costs associated with taking any extraordinary measures. If moving all 
this money around costs additional money, we should all know about it.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, we are talking about brinksmanship once 
again. I think this is a very unhealthy debate we are having because 
this is the not the way we should be running government anyway, from 
deadline to deadline.
  As I mentioned earlier, we should be sitting down and working these 
issues out and not having the world on the precipice of seeing the 
Nation default. No good will come of it, and absolutely no good comes 
from talking about it because it will never happen. We will not do it. 
We will not allow our country to default.
  They continue to talk this way because it is the way they are running 
government, whether it is the government shutdown or the debt limit or 
the highway trust fund or the Export-Import Bank or the FAA, which we 
are going to be taking up soon. I am sure that that will go to the last 
second before we will ever actually act. They will probably do a delay 
and do it a little later on in the year because that is the way we 
operate around here. It is unfortunate.
  Mr. Chairman, I point out there is a reason why the President has 
proposed a $3 trillion cut in the deficit on top of the $4 trillion 
that has already been enacted into law. It is to lower the national 
debt. We are working toward it.

[[Page H742]]

In fact, this President cut the trillion-dollar Bush deficit in half in 
less than 4\1/2\ years.
  One last time, I want to point out that we see the Republican budget. 
We understand the clarity in terms of the cuts you would make to Social 
Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the Affordable Care Act.
  There is one portion here, ``other mandatory cuts,'' and I suspect we 
know what they are as well. They are cuts to veterans', military 
personnel's, and Federal employees' pensions--veterans' pensions, 
military personnel's pensions, and Federal employees' pensions.
  I suspect people who live around Richmond, Virginia, or down by 
Norfolk would be very concerned about those cuts you may propose, as 
well as those folks who live in Virginia and Maryland surrounding 
Washington, D.C. A lot of Federal employees work around here. I know 
there are a lot of military employees as well. I think they are 
concerned about their pensions, the ones that you want to cut in the 
Federal Republican budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I am just looking for a little more transparency.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Indiana for 
introducing the amendment. I know it is in good faith.
  I am looking at my favorite chart since I have been here about what 
causes the public debt. I hear all of these folks talking about it--in 
both parties running for President--about the public debt, and I don't 
know what public debt they are talking about, to be very frank with 
you.
  Let me tell you what the public debt is all about that we are talking 
about: $19 trillion and rising. Most of the debt that we carry from 
year to year--and we have to pay interest on that debt, as you well 
know--comes from either the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 combined with the 
two wars we never paid for. I mean, those are the facts. I didn't make 
them up.
  So we have very little in the discretionary part of the budget. It is 
only 30 percent of the total budget. We do have a solution to part of 
the problem in that we extended Medicare for one of those mandatory 
costs for 12 years. That is what the ACA did.
  I am telling you we ought to learn what the facts are, and then maybe 
we would reduce the number of bills as well as the amendments.
  The Acting CHAIR. All Members are reminded to address their remarks 
to the Chair.
  Mr. MESSER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. MESSER. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle, their arguments seem to be summarized this 
way: that somehow if we just would all go bury our head in the sand 
that we would be better off.
  I mean, the reality is this: our Nation does have a $19 trillion 
debt. The reality is that every time this Congress had set a debt limit 
for our spending, we have breached that debt limit and had to raise 
another one. The reality is, as we have approached these debt limits in 
recent years, the Department of the Treasury has taken what they call 
extraordinary measures, doing it under the law to try to lengthen the 
amount of time until we hit that debt limit.
  This amendment is really a very modest one. All the amendment says 
is, if the Department of the Treasury is going to take extraordinary 
measures to avoid the limit on debt that has been set by Congress, that 
they ought to tell us all what they are doing. They ought to define 
what it is. They ought to define how much time we are going to buy with 
these extraordinary measures, and they ought to tell us what it costs 
as we juggle all this money around. Because when you start juggling 
money around, as everybody knows in their own life and in their own 
bills they have to pay, it costs money. That is all this amendment 
does.

                              {time}  1530

  That is all this amendment does. All this amendment does is make sure 
that as we approach the next debt limit and the Department of the 
Treasury takes the next extraordinary measures--we can bury our head in 
the sand and say it won't happen, but our entire Nation's history says 
it will--that we ought to define what they are going to do. They ought 
to tell us, tell the American people. They ought to explain how much 
time that buys, and they ought to say how much it costs. I hope my 
colleagues can support that.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman speaks of burying one's head 
in the sand. I think an example of that is not asking the OMB Director 
to come up to the Hill to talk to the Congress about the President's 
budget.
  As I mentioned before, the President's budget proposed $3 trillion in 
additional cuts to the Federal deficit. I may not agree with all the 
cuts the President is proposing, but I think it is a healthy thing for 
the President's representative, the Director of the OMB, to come before 
the Congress and speak about that; yet the other side of the aisle has 
refused to allow the OMB Director to come speak to the Congress to talk 
about these issues.
  So there is hypocrisy and then there is hypocrisy. Talk about putting 
your head in the sand. There is not enough sand for you all to put your 
heads in.
  The facts are the facts. Reductions are taking place. Accept it. They 
may not be pretty. The President is proposing them. At least listen to 
him before you totally disregard it before he has an opportunity to 
speak to you all. That is what has happened.
  Again, I know what the Republican budget says. It says cuts to 
veterans' pensions, military pensions, as well as to Federal employee 
pensions. That is what your budget does. Be honest about it. You talk 
about Social Security cuts. You make a lot of cuts, but at least talk 
about the other miscellaneous mandatory cuts, which really hurt people. 
I am not going to support that. You all may. It is in your budget. I am 
not going to support that. Democrats are not going to support that. You 
all may support that, but you have to respond to your constituents when 
you force these cuts down their throats.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is reminded that all remarks are to 
be addressed to the Chair.
  Mr. MESSER. Mr. Chair, how much time is remaining on my side?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. MESSER. Mr. Chairman, this debate is a remarkable one. There is 
only one group here that has a budget that balances. For the fifth or 
sixth or seventh year in a row, we will be submitting a budget that 
balances.
  The gentleman speaks of the President's budget. The President is 
going to have the unique historical legacy of having never offered a 
budget that balances, ever. This one doesn't. His others haven't. The 
truth is that, when the President's prior budgets have been put on this 
floor, they have received virtually no votes, like my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle. That is the truth.
  Again, back to this very simple amendment. All it does is say, when 
the Department of Treasury uses extraordinary measures, they should be 
clear with the American people about what they are doing, how much time 
that buys us, and what it costs. It is a commonsense amendment. I urge 
my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messer).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Grijalva

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 
printed in part A of House Report 114-420.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 4, line 21, strike ``and''.
       Page 4, after line 25, insert the following:
       ``(D) projections of earnings of individuals, including 
     salary and wages by decile, and
       ``(E) projections of consumer spending and the impacts of 
     such projections on gross domestic product.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 609, the gentleman

[[Page H743]]

from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, my amendment requires the Treasury 
Secretary's report to also include individual salary and wage 
information as well as projections of consumer spending and the impact 
of spending cuts on the gross domestic product.
  Stagnant American wages in recent decades are, without a question, 
the country's most central economic challenge, and the issue of wealth 
and income inequality continues to be a persistent strain on our 
economy and, indeed, our society. Raising wages is the key in 
strengthening the middle class, reducing income inequality, and moving 
families out of poverty.
  I am offering this amendment because we have to start getting 
realistic about the priorities of the American people.
  When Americans sit around their dinner tables, their number one 
discussion is not about the national debt. Their number one concern and 
discussion is providing for their families and how they are managing 
their own budgets. Many are seeing that, while costs are rising, their 
paychecks are not. Everyday items are becoming unaffordable, and 
workers are sick and tired of working full time and still struggling to 
get by.
  Since 1979, the vast majority of American workers have seen their 
hourly wages stagnate or, indeed, decline. From 1973 to 2013, hourly 
compensation of a typical production worker rose just 9 percent, while 
productivity increased 74 percent. In short, people are working harder 
and harder, and their paychecks are getting smaller and smaller.
  America now has more wealth and income inequality than any major 
developed country on Earth, and the gap between the very rich and 
everyone else is wider than at anytime since the 1920s. Shrinking 
American paychecks are the root cause of rising income inequality, and 
a host of issues have come with that.
  Wages drive our economy and consumer spending amounts to more than 
two-thirds of U.S. economic activity. A rise in consumer spending would 
provide a needed boost to the U.S. GDP. It is time to stop suppressing 
wages through policy choices that are slanted toward helping the 
wealthy. It is time to recognize that our decisions have a direct 
impact on a person's paycheck.
  Any report attempting to look at long-term fiscal issues of this 
country must examine why 58 percent of all new income since the Wall 
Street crash has gone to the top 1 percent. We should be considering 
how every decision will impact a family's income, and the fact that the 
underlying bill does not include information on wages is an injustice 
to struggling American families.
  I urge you to support this amendment and show the American people 
that the Members of Congress are not just fighting for policies that 
protect the wealthy but, indeed, for policies that protect us all.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARCHANT. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MARCHANT. Mr. Chairman, the goal of the Debt Management and 
Fiscal Responsibility Act is to create a sound process for considering 
the Federal debt limit. This amendment is not focused on that goal and, 
instead, asks for the administration to speculate about unrelated and 
impractical issues such as projection of wages at various percentiles. 
Instead, we should be spending our time focused on the drivers of our 
debt and how to come up with a credible solution to slow the trajectory 
of our debt.
  I oppose this amendment and ask that Members vote ``no.''
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, the bill overall is a push to continue to 
deal only with austerity as a plausible budgetary policy for this 
country. We can see what that austerity only has done to our country so 
far. This is how we ended up with sequestration. This is how we stifled 
GDP growth and harmed our overall economic recovery.
  The best way to address our long-term debt is to maximize our 
economic potential. We can't cut our way to prosperity. Instead, we 
should focus on protecting American workers and families so that they 
have the wealth necessary to make our economy grow and prosper again.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will 
be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Takano

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 
printed in part A of House Report 114-420.
  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk made in 
order under the rule.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 4, line 21, strike ``and''.
       Page 4, line 25, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
       Page 4, after line 25, insert the following:
       ``(D) how delayed action by Congress to raise the debt 
     limit and the threat of default impacts the economy, 
     including, but not limited to, the impact on the gross 
     domestic product (GDP), interest rates, employment, household 
     wealth, and retirement assets.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 609, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Takano) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my amendment to 
help Congress better understand how the mere threat of default would 
impact our economy.
  The Debt Management and Fiscal Responsibility Act gathers information 
from the Treasury about our Nation's debt but omits critical details; 
namely, the consequences for the country when my friends in the 
majority play a game of chicken with the full faith and credit of the 
United States.
  When the majority threatened the default in 2011, it was American 
families who paid the price. Household wealth fell by $2.4 trillion. 
Consumer and business confidence plunged. The S&P 500 dropped 17 
percent, $800 billion in retirement assets were wiped out, and our 
credit rating was downgraded, all thanks to Republicans threatening to 
force an unprecedented default on America's debt.
  If the extreme wing of the Republican Party is going to hold the 
economy hostage over the debt limit, they should at least understand 
the damage they are causing. My amendment requires the Treasury to 
include in its report to Congress the impact that the threat of default 
and congressional delay would have on the economy.
  The report would include the estimated effect on the gross domestic 
product, interest rates, employment, household wealth, and retirement 
assets. Honestly, I hope we never have to see this impact assessment 
produced. I hope we never again have to convince Republicans that 
raising the debt limit is a basic responsibility of Congress, not a 
bargaining chip. But their record says otherwise.
  The next time Republicans seek to score political points and push a 
radical agenda by threatening not to pay America's bills, I want the 
public to understand the cost of that threat. I think we will find 
pretty quickly that the American people have no appetite for petty 
politics when it comes to the debt limit. I urge my colleagues to 
support my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARCHANT. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MARCHANT. Mr. Chairman, the Debt Management and Fiscal 
Responsibility Act focuses on creating a process of transparency and 
accountability to

[[Page H744]]

deal with the debt ceiling. This bill gets Congress, the 
administration, and the public on the same page about why we 
continually find ourselves in this position. Raising the debt limit 
without any plan to get our debt under control in the future is not a 
plan.
  This amendment does not advance that goal. Instead, it goes in the 
opposite direction and attempts to focus our attention on the potential 
effects of brinksmanship.
  I urge Members to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chairman, my amendment does address the issue at 
hand. It does address the threat, just the mere threat of brinksmanship 
with paying our Nation's bills. History has shown that just the mere 
threat of defaulting on our bills has brought about damaging 
consequences to our economy and to the welfare of our people.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Takano).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments printed in part A of House Report 
114-420 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following 
order:
  Amendment No. 4 by Ms. Kelly of Illinois.
  Amendment No. 5 by Mr. Duffy of Wisconsin.
  Amendment No. 7 by Mr. Grijalva of Arizona.
  Amendment No. 8 by Mr. Takano of California.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any 
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.


            Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Kelly of Illinois

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Illinois 
(Ms. Kelly) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 184, 
noes 234, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 71]

                               AYES--184

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Dent
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jolly
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--234

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Huelskamp
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Bonamici
     Castro (TX)
     Cohen
     Fincher
     Herrera Beutler
     Hudson
     Huizenga (MI)
     Lieu, Ted
     Moore
     Pallone
     Pocan
     Reed
     Smith (WA)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Westmoreland

                              {time}  1605

  Messrs. GOHMERT and HUELSKAMP changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Messrs. KATKO, McNERNEY, and DOGGETT changed their vote from ``no'' 
to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                  Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Duffy

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Duffy) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.

[[Page H745]]

  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 240, 
noes 176, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 72]

                               AYES--240

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Huelskamp
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NOES--176

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Bonamici
     Brat
     Castro (TX)
     Cohen
     Fincher
     Herrera Beutler
     Hudson
     Huizenga (MI)
     Lieu, Ted
     Moore
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pocan
     Reed
     Smith (WA)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Westmoreland


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1610

  Mr. BUCHANAN changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. BRAT. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 72, I was unavoidably detained. 
Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chair, during the rollcall vote No. 72 on the Duffy 
Amendment, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have 
voted ``no.''


                Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Grijalva

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Grijalva) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 171, 
noes 245, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 73]

                               AYES--171

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peters
     Pingree
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--245

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carson (IN)
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes

[[Page H746]]


     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Huelskamp
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Bonamici
     Castro (TX)
     Cohen
     Davis, Danny
     Fincher
     Herrera Beutler
     Hudson
     Huizenga (MI)
     Lieu, Ted
     Moore
     Pallone
     Pocan
     Reed
     Schakowsky
     Smith (WA)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Westmoreland


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting Chair (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1613

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Takano

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Takano) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 190, 
noes 227, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 74]

                               AYES--190

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Dent
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanna
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jolly
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Miller (MI)
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--227

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Huelskamp
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Bonamici
     Castro (TX)
     Cohen
     Fincher
     Herrera Beutler
     Hudson
     Huizenga (MI)
     Lieu, Ted
     Moore
     Pallone
     Pocan
     Reed
     Smith (WA)
     Valadao
     Wasserman Schultz
     Westmoreland


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting Chair (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1618

  Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois changed his vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The Acting CHAIR. There being no further amendments, under the rule, 
the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Carter of Georgia) having assumed the chair, Mr. Jenkins of West 
Virginia, Acting Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state 
of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under 
consideration the bill (H.R. 3442) to provide further means of 
accountability of the United States debt and promote fiscal 
responsibility, and, pursuant to House Resolution 609, he reported the 
bill back to the House with sundry amendments adopted in the Committee 
of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.

[[Page H747]]

  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment reported from the 
Committee of the Whole?
  If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  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. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. DOGGETT. I am.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Doggett moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3442 to the 
     Committee on Ways and Means with instructions to report the 
     same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendments:
       Page 4, strike line 22 and all that follows through line 25 
     and insert the following:
       ``(C) an analysis of the following:
       ``(i) Long-term revenue lost from tax avoidance and evasion 
     resulting from tax loopholes exploited by businesses, 
     including corporate inversions, base erosion, unlimited 
     deferral of foreign earnings, and loopholes that encourage 
     the offshoring of jobs and profits.
       ``(ii) Long-term revenue lost from tax avoidance and 
     evasion resulting from tax loopholes abused by the wealthy, 
     including carried interest, estate tax rules, capital gains 
     rates, and deductions and exemptions that widen income and 
     wealth inequality among individuals.
       ``(iii) Long-term revenue lost due to unfair policies in 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, including those specified 
     in paragraphs (1) and (2), which contribute to growing tax 
     avoidance and evasion by American businesses and individuals 
     who are increasingly more discouraged by corporations and 
     wealthy individuals not being required to pay their fair 
     share of taxes.
       ``(iv) ) Long-term revenue lost due to unfair policies in 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 which harm middle-class 
     workers and families and the long-term revenue effect of a 
     shrinking middle class.''.
       Page 5, line 16, strike ``information, including'' and all 
     that follows through line 2 on page 6 and insert 
     ``information.''.

  Mr. MARCHANT (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to dispense with the reading.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, to address a problem that has impacted our 
country for generations, some of our problem-solving colleagues have 
devised a surefire remedy. They are demanding another government 
report. Instead of actually voting to prevent more debt when they had 
the opportunity, they want a report.
  Approval of this motion will not kill the report, it will not kill 
the bill, nor will it send it back to committee. Rather, the bill will 
immediately proceed to final passage, as amended, but it will be a more 
complete report that more completely describes the problem with which 
we are dealing.
  Some of my Republican colleagues have a near insatiable desire for 
tax cuts that don't pay for themselves. They don't mind borrowing from 
foreign sources to provide more tax preferences to Wall Street or the 
privileged few. This motion would simply expose the cost of this false 
ideology. It would add a requirement that the public just find out how 
much these special-interest tax loopholes cost.
  Specifically, this report would be expanded to include inversions. 
These are schemes by which some multinational corporations are 
renouncing their American charter, their American citizenship, in order 
to dodge taxes, while continuing to remain in America and claim the 
benefits of being American, paid for by their business competitors and 
other taxpayers. We have had a recent string of these inversions, which 
are really perversions of our Tax Code by those who refuse to pay their 
fair share of the cost of national security and other vital services.
  American corporation Johnson Controls, for example, has announced its 
intent to merge with Tyco. Tyco was once an American citizen, before it 
became a citizen of Bermuda, before it switched to become a citizen of 
Ireland--all the while being managed in New Jersey. And Pfizer, the 
largest pharmaceutical company, is seeking the luck of the Irish--the 
Irish taxes, that is--but it certainly refuses to charge Americans 
lower, more reasonable Irish pharmaceutical costs.
  These are the same companies that are insulted by the notion that 
they ought to pay a higher rate on their earnings than the people who 
clean up the boardroom at night.
  The Republican chairman of a Houston oil services company wrote me a 
long time ago rejecting this notion as unfair and unpatriotic.
  He said:
  We are proud of our country, and we are willing to pay U.S. taxes to 
receive the wonderful benefits of U.S. citizenship. My strongly held 
view is that if companies want to be headquartered in some tax haven, 
then the management should give up their U.S. citizenship and move 
there.
  I agree. But that is not what happens. With our current tax 
loopholes, they don't have to move much more than a mailbox and few 
staff members.
  Since the U.S. Supreme Court thinks that corporations are people for 
many other purposes, I agree with former Secretary Hillary Clinton's 
proposal to treat these charter-changing corporations as individuals 
like the super rich individuals who turn in passports and leave 
America. Apply an exit tax to previous profits that these corporations 
want to take out of the country.
  There is much more that the Treasury Department can and should do 
now, since what it has done so far under existing legal authority has 
not accomplished very much.
  Today, let's just get a report about it, about a giant rip-off of 
America. Corporations which are shipping their jobs and profits 
overseas while paying their lobbyists and their chief executive 
officers more than they pay the United States Treasury in taxes in any 
given year have made a pretty good investment for themselves, but it is 
not too great for the rest of us. They could not do it without enablers 
in this Congress.
  American companies who stay in America and contribute to building 
American manufacturing in America deserve to have a level playing 
field. They help keep us secure at home and abroad, and they deserve to 
be treated fairly. In order to create more opportunity for all, we need 
more responsibility from all. Let's at least get a report about it.
  That is all that this motion to recommit does is to ask for a report 
to go along with the report that they are seeking from the Treasury 
Department to tell us what is happening, how our middle class--our 
working Americans--are having to pay more because some others won't pay 
their fair share.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARCHANT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MARCHANT. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge the House to reject this 
motion to recommit and adopt the Debt Management and Fiscal 
Responsibility Act. It is a commonsense solution to Washington's debt-
crisis mentality.
  H.R. 3442 creates a process to bring transparency, responsibility, 
and consistency to the debt management process. Regardless of whether a 
person supports raising the debt ceiling or not, everyone should 
support a process that gives us more information to make an educated 
decision.

                              {time}  1630

  The Debt Management and Fiscal Responsibility Act requires the 
administration to report on the state of the national debt before the 
debt ceiling is reached. It also requires the administration to make 
recommendations and report information about how to reduce the debt and 
how America can meet its future obligations.
  This accountability will give Congress the information it needs when 
considering the debt limit. All of this information will be made public 
online.
  H.R. 3442 is a strong first step to move government away from its 
current crisis approach and changes the focus into coming up with 
solutions for our debt problem. I am a firm believer in H.R. 3442.
  I urge all Members to reject this motion to recommit, and support the 
legislation.

[[Page H748]]

  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. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 5-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 5-
minute votes on passage of H.R. 3442, if ordered; ordering the previous 
question on House Resolution 611; and adoption of the House Resolution 
611, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 179, 
noes 238, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 75]

                               AYES--179

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     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)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--238

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Huelskamp
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Bonamici
     Castro (TX)
     Cohen
     Fincher
     Herrera Beutler
     Hudson
     Huizenga (MI)
     Lieu, Ted
     Moore
     Pallone
     Pocan
     Reed
     Roskam
     Smith (WA)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Westmoreland


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1636

  Mr. POMPEO changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  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.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. 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 267, 
noes 151, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 76]

                               AYES--267

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Aguilar
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bera
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Blumenauer
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carney
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Delaney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duckworth
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Esty
     Farenthold
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garamendi
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Himes
     Holding
     Huelskamp
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Kuster
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     O'Rourke
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schrader

[[Page H749]]


     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Torres
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vela
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NOES--151

     Adams
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Beyer
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kirkpatrick
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Pingree
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Bonamici
     Castro (TX)
     Cohen
     Fincher
     Herrera Beutler
     Hudson
     Huizenga (MI)
     Lieu, Ted
     Moore
     Pallone
     Pocan
     Reed
     Smith (WA)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Westmoreland


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1642

  Mr. DOGGETT changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________