[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 16401-16405]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




         DISAPPROVAL RESOLUTION RELATING TO DEBT LIMIT INCREASE

  Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 391 
and section 1002(e) of the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014, I have 
a motion at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Young of Indiana moves that the House proceed to 
     consider House Joint Resolution 99.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 1002(e)(2)(B) of the 
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014, the motion is not debatable.
  The question is on the motion.
  The motion was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the title of the joint 
resolution.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The text of the joint resolution is as follows:

                              H.J. Res. 99

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress 
     disapproves of the President's exercise of authority to 
     suspend the debt limit, as exercised pursuant to the 
     certification under section 1002(b) of the Continuing 
     Appropriations Act, 2014.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 391 and section 
1002(e)(2)(C) of the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014, the joint 
resolution is considered as read, and the previous question is 
considered as ordered on the joint resolution to its passage without 
intervening motion, except 1 hour of debate, equally divided and 
controlled by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Young) as the proponent 
and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) as the opponent.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.


                             General Leave

  Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks and to include extraneous material on the subject of the joint 
resolution under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Some people may be wondering why we find ourselves here today. Some 
people may be confused as to why we are voting on a resolution to 
disapprove of the debt limit suspension 2 weeks after the fact. And 
some people may be asking why I introduced this resolution of 
disapproval on behalf of some people who voted ``yes'' and others who 
voted ``no'' to give the President the authority to suspend the debt 
limit.
  The answers to these questions are much simpler than they might 
appear.
  We are here today because the United States of America carries a debt 
load of over $17 trillion and counting.
  We are voting on this resolution today because this is the procedure 
that was put in place by the Senate when they crafted a package to end 
the government shutdown. Many of us voted for that Senate legislation 
largely because we didn't think it was responsible to risk defaulting 
on our national debt.
  However, I introduced this resolution, and a majority of House 
Members will vote to disapprove, because it is also not responsible to 
ignore the problems created by our long-term debt.
  Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that a large number in this body voted 
to avoid default, it would be a gross mischaracterization to say that 
we approve of a debt limit suspension absent adoption of bold policy 
reforms that will set our Nation on a sustainable fiscal trajectory.
  We must break the habit of negotiating these fiscal deals at the last 
minute. We must stop kicking the can down the road, proverbially 
skipping along from crisis to crisis.
  Simply put: enough is enough. Let's start talking across party lines 
about how to fix our debt problems now, not the end of a deadline.
  We know that programs like Medicare and Social Security are on 
unsustainable footing. That is why a Democratic President and 
Republican House have both offered up reforms for these programs. So if 
we agree there is a problem, why must we wait until the next crisis to 
address it?
  We know that our Tax Code is outdated and that it has become too 
larded up with narrowly tailored provisions that benefit only a small 
number of special interests. That is why our House Ways and Means 
chairman has met weekly with the Senate Finance chairman to discuss how 
best to achieve a fairer, flatter Tax Code in a bipartisan way.
  If there is agreement here, then why are we looking to self-imposed 
fiscal deadlines in hopes of getting a deal? I could go on and on, but 
I think the point is clear: Washington missed an opportunity during our 
most recent fiscal showdown.
  This resolution sends a message that ignoring our problems does not 
make them go away. It sends a message that we should not wait until the 
last minute, but should reach across the aisle to face these challenges 
now; and it sends a message that we take these issues very seriously 
because they bear directly on job creation, personal income levels, and 
our collective faith in America's enduring exceptionalism.
  I urge my colleagues to support this resolution of disapproval.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Just a short time ago, a number of us joined many others in paying 
tribute to Speaker Tom Foley. There was a commemoration ceremony just 
100 feet or so from here.
  There was a lot of discussion, appropriately, of the need for 
bipartisanship. There was much reference to the role that Tom Foley 
played in that in trying to reach across the aisle.
  Bob Michel, the former leader on the Republican side, spoke so 
eloquently as to how there was a level of trust and how there was an 
effort at bipartisanship.

                              {time}  1745

  I think what has happened in this House is that the increased 
polarization has really twisted this institution and has even, to some 
extent, twisted the ability to have close relationships. I say this 
because I think this resolution is not within that spirit.
  It was only the week before last that 87 House Republicans joined 198 
House Democrats to pull this Nation back from the brink of a default 
that would have magnified the economic damage inflicted by the 
Republican shutdown of this government. That was a bipartisan effort 
with leadership support from both sides of the aisle.
  And I can understand why those who voted ``no'' on October 16 might 
vote ``yes'' on this bill in order to be consistent. And while I 
disagree with the policy, at least their vote would be consistent. I 
think the vote would be consistently wrong, but it would be consistent.
  What is hard to understand is how anybody who voted ``yes'' on 
October 16 to avoid a default would now vote ``yes'' on this bill that 
would bring about a default. So you talk about the message. 
Essentially, the message of this bill is once again we will utilize the 
threat of default. That is what this

[[Page 16402]]

bill says. When you vote for it, that is precisely what you are saying. 
So you are saying that serious impairment of our Nation's full faith 
and credit, which economists warned would plunge us back into 
recession, was a bad idea on Wednesday, 2 weeks ago, but doing so is a 
good idea on Wednesday, 2 weeks later, when we vote tomorrow. That is 
precisely what you are saying. That is your message. So the same person 
who voted one way then is soon going to vote the other way.
  Let me just say why I think this is not within the spirit of an 
effort at bipartisanship that I referred to earlier and that I think is 
so important, and the lack of any effort at that has really twisted--I 
use that word--the strength of this institution.
  Just a short time ago, a few weeks ago, as the Republicans took us to 
the brink of default, the minority leader on the Senate side said:

       There is no education in the second kick of a mule, and we 
     are not going to do this again in connection with the debt 
     ceiling or with a government shutdown.

  That is precisely what this legislation says--precisely. It says--
forget about the second kick of a mule. What it says is that you would 
do it again in connection with the debt ceiling. So that is your 
message. And you would do that; you would take us to the brink of 
default that, earlier this month, the Council of Economic Advisers 
estimated lost 120,000 jobs that would have been created in October and 
private forecasters estimated slowed fourth quarter GDP growth by 
between 0.2 and 0.6 percentage point.
  So I think there is no escape from the inconsistency. There is no 
escape from essentially saying once again there is no real effort to 
reach across the aisle. There is no real effort to try to instill some 
belief that the two parties can work together. So that is a bad 
message, and I guess a lot of you think you can be inconsistent because 
it will never come up in the Senate. And it won't. But that doesn't 
take away the fact that there is an inconsistency here, I guess to try 
to cover some people's votes, to somehow minimize their impact.
  But when it comes to the default of the full faith and credit of this 
country, there has to be something more important than providing us 
cover. We need to provide cover for the citizens of this country so 
that they are not vulnerable to playing with the default and the full 
faith and credit of this country.
  So you shouldn't be bringing up this resolution. It will pass, I 
guess. There will be enough inconsistent votes, and it will go nowhere, 
but it sends the very, very wrong message.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I have so much respect for the long-standing service and 
distinguished tenure of my colleague on the other side of the aisle, 
and I just think that there is some clarification that is required in 
this body and for all who may be watching this evening's proceedings, 
so let me begin by reminding those who would review the record.
  I am not sure I invoked the words ``Republican'' or ``Democrat'' in 
my opening comments. If I did, it certainly wasn't in a partisan 
nature. Instead, I extended a hand of friendship. I tried to actually 
increase trust and offered the hope that we might work together, we 
might actually work together to work on the very problems that caused 
me to run for office for the first time in 2010: the $17 trillion 
national debt that I know has grown to a great degree during the 
service of the good gentleman on the other side of the aisle who just 
spoke; the unsustainable entitlement programs that, when push comes to 
shove and we can no longer find the resources to fund them because 
people haven't made bold enough leadership decisions, those on the 
margins of society will be most adversely impacted.
  I know these are issues that my good ranking member friend on the 
other side of the aisle cares about as much as I do. We have just not 
yet come together and found bipartisan solutions to these things.
  Now, the continuing resolution vote that we passed, the package, if 
you will, the vote that we passed a few days ago, accomplished a few 
things. We indicated that the President could suspend the debt ceiling, 
but that move could be checked by votes of disapproval in the House and 
the Senate. So this was a process that was put into motion by that 
earlier bipartisan vote that occurred right here in this body.
  It is true that it has been made clear over in the other Chamber, the 
Senate, that the leader there will never bring this bill up in the 
Senate. That has been made eminently clear. The risk of default is 
something that ought not be mentioned. We needn't spook the markets 
here. We will pay our bills in this country. That is something I have 
been proud to stand for ever since I have been in this body.
  The continuing resolution package also indicated that, on February 8, 
the debt limit would be increased to reflect the borrowing that 
occurred during the debt limit suspension period, and then the Treasury 
would be given the ability to create additional headroom via so-called 
extraordinary measures after the debt limit was reinstated on February 
8, 2014.
  So that is the larger context here. It sounds to me very procedural, 
not particularly partisan. In fact, my hope was that this could be 
offered in the spirit of bipartisanship. This is a messaging bill.
  There was an allusion during my good friend's comments to a message 
being sent as if that is somehow a negative thing. Now, most of the 
bills that are introduced in this body are introduced in part, at 
least, to offer a message to the broader American people, and we stand 
here and argue on behalf of the message that we are trying to drive 
home.
  The message that I am trying to drive home is that these debt 
problems have lingered on too long and that to increase a debt limit, 
to suspend a debt limit, is certainly not to approve further borrowing 
in the future absent the sort of bold changes that, frankly, have not 
been enacted when my good friend has served many years in Congress. So 
that is the larger message here, and that is how I would respond.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished freshman 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wenstrup), who has had a lot of life's 
experiences.
  Mr. WENSTRUP. Mr. Speaker, during World War II, man, woman, young, 
old, rich, poor, everyone in this Nation pulled together to bring our 
country through a difficult time. It was a bipartisan effort, for sure. 
After the war, we cut spending and we were a Nation that went to work.
  But I ask my colleagues today, as we continue to increase our 
spending and run up our debt: What is the limit? At what point do you 
finally say it is dangerous, it is dangerous for the future of America? 
Is there a limit? We can't keep going in this direction.
  No one in this body wants America to default--that is not good for 
this country--but we need to be serious about what we plan for the 
future of this country. People are always saying, ``Do it for the kids; 
do it for the kids.'' We do a lot for kids, and we can always do more 
for kids, but what about when those kids today are grown up and they 
are stuck with all this debt? What are we doing to them?
  The Temptations, in the 1970s, had a song that said:

       Papa was a rolling stone. And when he died, all he left us 
     was ``a loan.''

  It was not a compliment. And if it was irresponsible in the 1970s, it 
is irresponsible today.
  I spoke earlier about the Greatest Generation and the legacy they 
left. What is going to be our legacy? A legacy of nothing but debt?
  Can you imagine the potential for opportunity in this country, for 
investment and for jobs, if we are serious and we are on a solvent 
course for the United States of America? And the sooner we go in that 
direction, the more we can do to help Americans that are in need.
  It is about stability. It is about certainty for the United States of 
America.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  The gentleman from Indiana mentioned about spooking the market--and

[[Page 16403]]

Halloween is in a couple of days. Essentially, what this bill says is 
you would be willing to spook the market if you could. That is the 
wrong message.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), a 
veteran of these battles and a friend of Tom Foley's.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, whoever hired the Republican consultants on 
keeping the majority should be able to get their money back.
  I had a thought just a few weeks ago that a small group in this House 
had such an obsession with the Affordable Care Act and such a dislike 
for the President that they were prepared not only to close the 
government, but to attack the integrity of the full faith and credit of 
the United States. The scorn and ridicule that this caused this 
Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike, because of this strategy to 
repeal a bill that already had been signed into law and approved by the 
United States Supreme Court, you would think that no one would want to 
go anywhere near that again.
  But still, we have a bill before us that admittedly has already been 
rejected by the Senate because we want to remind the American people 
how totally irresponsible we have been in the past in not only causing 
our great country to lose $125 billion, not only the job loss, not only 
the pain and sacrifice that so many people have gone through because 
they weren't paid for the work that they were supposed to be doing, but 
to have the whole country call us irresponsible and to have people who 
loaned us money be uncertain as to our ability to pay it back, and then 
we want to revisit this with a bill that is destined to go nowhere.

                              {time}  1800

  I am a partisan Democrat, but I am more of a patriot, and I hate to 
see the Republican Party do this to itself because I really think that 
our country needs another party, not just a Democratic party. I know 
that individuals don't care about the national Republican reputation, 
but what has happened here is that the irresponsibility, the ridicule, 
the insanity of these strategies has gone beyond the Republican Party 
in the House. It has now infested part of our party, and people are 
talking about the Presidency in terms of ``bring on the clowns.''
  This is embarrassing to all of us as Americans, and especially as 
lawmakers. This body wasn't created for us to send messages; it was 
created for us to pass laws.
  Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman), a hardworking colleague.
  Mr. STUTZMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Indiana 
(Mr. Young) for introducing this resolution.
  This is about communicating with the American people. I am not quite 
sure what to say after the last speaker, who said he was a partisan 
Democrat, would not want to come together, both parties, to work 
together to find a problem to the $17 trillion of debt that we have. 
That seems to be more of the problem in Washington today--the fact that 
parties don't want to work together to find a problem to the threat to 
our children and our grandchildren.
  Mr. Young mentioned earlier that that was the reason that he ran for 
office--because of the $17 trillion of debt that at the time in 2010 
was roughly closer to $13 trillion and has only exceeded that since we 
have been elected to office.
  We are Americans first--not partisans, Americans--who believe that we 
need to pass on a better future for our children and our grandchildren 
and for future generations here in America. That is what is wrong with 
Washington: too many partisans.
  I believe we have got to find solutions that are going to balance the 
budget, like Americans do across the country every day, whether it is 
filling up gas at the gas station or whether it is the book dues for 
the kids at school, health care costs, the cost of utilities.
  People are trying to make ends meet. Instead, Washington is only 
making it harder, through partisanship, on the American people. Both 
parties, Republican and Democrat, have driven Washington $17 trillion 
in debt. For decades, Republicans and Democrats offered empty promises 
and cheap excuses, but our fiscal crisis cannot be ignored any more.
  The national debt now exceeds our gross domestic product and saddles 
every American with a $53,000 share of Washington's red ink. The facts 
are very clear. Our current path is unsustainable. Although Medicare, 
Medicaid, and Social Security will grow dramatically over the next 
decade, recent budget debates between Congress and the White House have 
largely ignored these key drivers of the debt. So what is going to 
happen? Washington is going to continue to stumble from one crisis to 
the next. This is no way to run a country.
  Madam Speaker, it is irresponsible to raise the debt ceiling without 
tackling the underlying spending problems of this crisis. Hoosiers 
don't expect Republicans and Democrats to agree on every proposal, but 
they do expect us to make the difficult choices to put us on a path of 
fiscal stability. Now is the time for both parties to break 
Washington's cycle of manufactured crises and pay down our debt.
  I thank the gentleman for bringing this resolution to the floor of 
the House so we can discuss not only the spending problems, but what is 
the problem underlying the spending habits and the spending problems in 
Washington. Is it just ObamaCare, as the gentleman said previously? 
ObamaCare is part of the problem of our spending in Washington. 
Washington continues to look out for Washington interests and special 
interests rather than looking out for American interests.
  Mr. Young, thank you for bringing this important resolution. If there 
is anything that threatens our security, it is our national debt. The 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 2011, Admiral Mike Mullen, 
said that this is the greatest threat to our national security.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Foxx). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an 
additional 1 minute.
  Mr. STUTZMAN. I thank the gentleman.
  As I mentioned, Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff in 2011, after the last debt ceiling discussion in July and 
August of 2011, said that the debt was the greatest threat to our 
national security.
  Not only is it a threat to our ability to protect our country 
militarily, but it is an even greater threat to our country 
economically. Families are feeling the brunt day to day in the fact 
that salaries are not increasing, jobs are not being created. This is 
the fundamental crisis that our country is facing today, and we do need 
to talk about it, and we do need to share with one another here in 
Congress ideas and ways that we can tackle our debt problems.
  Mr. Young, thank you for this resolution. I proudly support it, and I 
am glad to work with anyone, Republican or Democrat, to tackle our debt 
problems.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from Illinois (Danny K. Davis), a distinguished member of 
our committee.
  Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the 
ranking member for yielding.
  I hope that we have learned from 3 weeks ago, and that we are not 
easing down the road to brinksmanship once again. Every American will 
pay another heavy price if some of our colleagues are able to again 
trigger another shutdown of the government.
  I agree with President Obama that the full faith and credit of our 
country is not negotiable. If there are colleagues who are thinking 
about it, I would urge you not to do it. Don't create higher mortgage 
costs. Don't cause investors to lose on their retirement plans. Don't 
cause doctors and hospitals to wonder whether or not they are going to 
be paid for treating Medicare and Medicaid patients. Don't cause 
student loans to go up. Don't create anxiety for more than 10 million 
seniors who will be wondering whether

[[Page 16404]]

or not they are going to get their Social Security checks. Don't create 
concern among veterans who will be wondering whether or not they are 
going to get their disability benefit checks.
  Anybody that might be thinking about it, I would urge you not to do 
it. Don't attempt to hold the debt ceiling hostage. I would say, as it 
was said in the Book of Isaiah, Come and let us reason together, 
because if we don't, then the whole country will suffer. Come and let 
us find the way to work in a way that our problems can be dealt with. I 
believe that we can do it. It has been done before.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I end with: let's do it. 
Let's show the American people that we can work in a bipartisan way and 
solve the problems and meet the needs of the people of this country.
  Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp), a distinguished colleague.
  Mr. HUELSKAMP. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the efforts of my 
colleague from Indiana bringing this before the House for discussion.
  The reality is, the staggering fact is that since the President's 
reelection through to the next debt limit vote, Washington will have 
added about $1 trillion to our national debt--in exchange for what? For 
no spending reductions, in exchange for maintaining the status quo.
  This is not, as Democrats would argue, about paying our bills; it is 
about mortgaging our Nation's future. Not only must we vote ``yes'' on 
this resolution to disapprove of this culture of debt, but it is also 
time to bring long overdue transparency to the process.
  As we approached the so-called ``default deadline,'' the White House 
press secretary told reporters that Secretary Lew did not say we risked 
default at midnight on October 17; only that we were likely to exhaust 
our borrowing authority that day. The press corps, as you might recall, 
responded in disbelief that their doomsday default clocks may actually 
be wrong. Let's be clear: we were not going to default.
  Why do I say that? Ask the Vice President, who disappeared for a 
couple of weeks. It was the Vice President who went to China in August 
of 2011 and told the Chinese we would never default. Moody's said we 
were not going to default. The markets showed little volatility. They 
knew we would not default. Default was just a scare tactic to scare the 
American people, and we as elected Representatives had no access to the 
actual data to determine how much borrowing authority the Secretary and 
the administration had left. We were simply left to take Jack Lew's 
word for it. In the future, I believe we must require a fuller 
accounting of how extraordinary measures are used, reported, and are 
remaining by any administration. In the words of Ronald Reagan, we 
should ``trust, but verify.''
  Madam Speaker, earlier this year, the President sent us a budget that 
never balances. In fact, he has done that now for 5 years straight. 
That means under his plan, time and time and time and time and time 
again, we would only add to our national debt and never pay it off.
  A vote today to disapprove this debt limit increase may have little 
impact on the previous $17 trillion in debt or the next $600 billion in 
debt that we approved as a body a few weeks ago, but it does say three 
things:
  It is time to end our culture of debt;
  It is time to end the Washington status quo;
  It is time to end the crisis of out-of-control spending and massive 
debt.
  I appreciate my colleague's leadership on this matter.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda).
  Mr. HONDA. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for yielding 
time to me.
  I rise in opposition to this resolution, but I am strongly in favor 
of the process that we are using to deal with the debt limit. There is 
a difference.
  If this resolution to force an unprecedented default passes both this 
House and the Senate, the President can decide to sign it or not. Even 
if he doesn't sign it, Congress will have another opportunity to stop a 
debt ceiling raise.
  This is a process that the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, 
first suggested in 2011 and has been used in debt limit bills to avoid 
defaulting since. It is good enough to use right now, it has been good 
enough to use for 2 years, and it is good enough to help us avoid these 
manufactured crises on a permanent basis.
  This is a process that helps us separate the true need for 
congressional intervention on the debt limit from those that are 
manufactured and motivated by politics. This is a process that works 
and helps us avoid unnecessary pain. We should never have a replay of 
the hostage-taking and brinksmanship that we recently went through to 
get to this point.
  We know what we have to do, and we know we should not be playing 
games with the debt limit. That is why I offer a bill that would make 
this process permanent and keep this Nation fiscally solvent. Senators 
Boxer, Schumer, and Hirono introduced this very same bill today in the 
Senate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. HONDA. I support this process, and I hope my colleagues will 
support my efforts to make it the permanent solution to the debt 
crisis.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the resolution, but I support this process 
that allows it.

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Griffin), a distinguished member of the 
Ways and Means Committee and my friend and colleague.
  Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of 
House Joint Resolution 99, offered by the gentleman from Indiana, my 
good friend and colleague on the House Ways and Means Committee.
  And I want to be clear: this is not a resolution for default. This is 
an opportunity to talk about how we have got to, when raising the debt 
ceiling, deal with the underlying drivers of the debt.
  History shows numerous instances in which spending cuts and reforms 
have been coupled with increases in the debt limit. This dates back to 
the inception of the debt ceiling limit in 1917. It also includes two 
instances during the 110th Congress when President Obama served in the 
Senate.
  Further, in March 2006, then-Senator Obama voted against raising the 
debt limit. And we have heard some folks tonight talk about how they 
agree with President Obama. Well, let's listen to what he said in March 
2006:

       Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and 
     internationally. Leadership means that the buck stops here. 
     Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices 
     today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. 
     America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. 
     Americans deserve better.

  Well, I also agreed with then-Senator, now President, Obama. And it 
is abundantly clear that no one is going to fail to raise the debt 
ceiling. No one is going to jeopardize our credit, but we must speak 
out on the failure to address the debt drivers.
  In July 2008, then-Senator Obama said that adding $4 trillion to the 
national debt over 8 years was ``irresponsible'' and ``unpatriotic.'' I 
agree with what he said then.
  Since he became President in 2009, President Obama has increased the 
total Federal debt from $10.6 trillion to over $17 trillion. One has to 
wonder what then-Senator Obama would have to say about President Obama.
  He has continually called for raising the debt ceiling during his 
Presidency without implementing any of the necessary reforms needed to 
get our Federal spending under control.
  My focus has always been on working with anyone who is willing to 
find a real, long-term solution to Washington's spending addiction. 
This resolution shows the House is ready to start talking across party 
lines about how to fix our debt problems now, not at the next deadline.
  Late last year, CNN reported that ``the United States spends about 71

[[Page 16405]]

cents of every Federal tax dollar it collects on what is called the Big 
4--Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and interest on the debt.''
  If nothing is done, in just 13 years the Big 4 could eat up every 
penny of tax revenue collected by the Federal Government, leaving 
nothing to pay for the discretionary spending that we like. That 
includes spending on defense, veterans benefits, education, roads, 
national parks, museums, medical research, food safety and air traffic 
control, to name a few.
  CNN further said that ``by 2040, more than half of all Federal tax 
revenue would be eaten up by interest payments on the debt alone.''
  In 2006, then-Senator Obama said those ``interest payments are a 
significant tax on all Americans, a debt tax that Washington doesn't 
want to talk about.''
  But let's be clear: House Republicans in Congress, and the voters who 
put us here, are the only reason--the only reason--anyone in August of 
2011 talked about the debt problem and reached a debt deal. Otherwise, 
the President would have simply had the debt ceiling raised, and there 
would have been nothing done structurally.
  And we are the only reason why we talk about it now. Otherwise, it 
would be a clean debt ceiling increase with no strings attached.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important 
resolution and getting our excessive spending under control.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of our time, and 
I will speak very briefly because the message here is so clear, that 
those who vote for this bill are saying they are willing to use the 
threat of default once again, and we shouldn't be doing this.
  I don't think the Nation believed that this government and its 
programs would be shut down; but it turned out, because of the way the 
Republicans handled it, this government was shut down, and programs 
were very much undercut that were needed by the people of this country.
  We came within a flicker of default. The consequences of playing with 
that were very, very substantial.
  So now, once again, the Republicans bring up a bill, and whatever the 
reason is, are giving people a chance, once again, to say that playing 
with default is a legitimate method of operation. You shouldn't do 
this.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would just like to 
reiterate five key points:
  One, our current national debt exceeds $17 trillion, an amount that 
is greater than our annual GDP, the size of our economy.
  Two, while I and so many others in my party agree with many of my 
colleagues across the aisle that risking default is irresponsible, it 
is just as irresponsible to ignore why our debt is so darn high and 
what it means for the future of our country.
  Three, we can and must work across partisan lines to avoid default in 
conjunction with a debt ceiling vote or a default related to a 
continued failure to address the largest drivers of our debt; and we 
must begin that work now, not at the last minute, or the next self-
imposed fiscal deadline.
  Four, those who have served here for decades have known for decades 
that our population was growing older, that health care costs were 
rising, and that our long-term fiscal trajectory was unsustainable; but 
nothing has happened.
  Five, this recognition that Washington continually misses 
opportunities to put our country on a path to fiscal health ought to be 
something on which we can all agree.
  I urge all my colleagues who want to see our country address our 
long-term challenges before it is too late to vote ``yes'' on this 
resolution of disapproval.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 
99.
  My Republican colleagues can't help themselves. It wasn't enough that 
they nearly caused a global economic meltdown by forcing the government 
to close and stonewalling an increase in the debt limit earlier this 
month. Now they want to do it all over again by revoking the 
President's authority to raise the debt limit, which Congress granted 
him in a bipartisan manner. Republicans in the House aren't just 
welshing on that compromise, but they're also signaling their intention 
to take the country over the brink again, all to score political 
points.
  This is a farcical exercise and one undeserving of this body's 
consideration. I would hope that early October's nightmare taught us a 
lesson or two, but it appears that some of my colleagues haven't 
learned a thing. All of this boils down to a simple question: Do you 
support preventing a catastrophic worldwide economic calamity that will 
decimate the lives of your constituents? If so, then vote down H.J. 
Res. 99.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Joyce). All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the statute, the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint 
resolution.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third 
time, and was read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________