[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6433-6440]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 807, FULL FAITH AND CREDIT ACT

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 202 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 202

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     807) to require that the Government prioritize all 
     obligations on the debt held by the public in the event that 
     the debt limit is reached. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Ways 
     and Means now printed in the bill shall be considered as 
     adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill, as 
     amended, are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     further amendment thereto, to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Ways and Means; (2) the further 
     amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution, if offered by Representative 
     Camp of Michigan or his designee, which shall be in order 
     without intervention of any point of order, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be separately debatable for 10 
     minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and 
     an opponent, and shall not be subject to a demand for 
     division of the question; and (3) one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1 
hour.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the ranking member of the Committee on 
Rules, the gentlewoman from New York, my friend (Ms. Slaughter), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. House Resolution 202 provides for a structured rule for 
consideration of H.R. 807. This rule provides for discussion 
opportunities for Members of the minority and the majority to 
participate in this debate.
  Today, Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity to guarantee the full 
faith and credit of the United States for generations to come by 
ensuring that our Nation will never default on our debt obligations.
  Functionally, H.R. 807, the Full Faith and Credit Act of 2013, 
ensures that the Treasury Department will continue to make payments on 
the principal and interest of our debt, including debt held by the 
Social Security trust fund, in the event that the statutory debt limit 
is reached. Requiring the Treasury to make good on its obligations to 
the Social Security trust fund will ensure that those funds are 
available to honor our commitment to seniors and disabled Americans.
  Moreover, H.R. 807 provides certainty to investors, small businesses, 
retirees, pension beneficiaries, and international markets that we will 
never negatively impact our economy by allowing this Nation to default 
on its debts.
  In the larger sense, it is our opportunity to engage, in a public 
forum, the Treasury Department and the administration on what we 
believe is the right way to engage in discussions about how we will 
move forward in uncharted territories as it's dealing with the 
financial difficulties of our country.
  However, today's debate is symptomatic of the larger problem. For far 
too long, our Federal Government has spent too much money and borrowed 
too much. We have spent money and not listened to the American people, 
nor looked ahead at the consequences of spending too much, saving too 
little, and not creating jobs that will help to sustain the American 
Dream, the next generation, and the systems which we hold so dear to 
the American system.
  House Republicans however, today, come to the floor, under the 
leadership of our great Ways and Means Chairman, Dave Camp, and some 
ideas that have come from Congressman Tom McClintock of California, and 
we are working on ideas with commonsense solutions to cut wasteful 
spending, reform entitlement programs, and balance the budget in a way 
that furthers our country, strengthens what we do, and makes sure we 
are ready for tomorrow.
  Yet at almost every turn, including yesterday, up in the Rules 
Committee upstairs, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have 
opposed pro-growth agendas and pushed for higher taxes and more 
spending. It happens almost every single day, every single bill that we 
bring before the Rules Committee, a demand to increase spending and 
increase taxes.
  Our Nation does not have a taxing problem. It has a spending problem; 
and until we enact meaningful reforms, we will not improve our dire 
financial dilemma and the circumstances that come with trying to manage 
a problem instead of a growth opportunity to make our country stronger.
  Today, the American economy is struggling and has been struggling now 
in our fifth year to regain momentum and is burdened by massive amounts 
of Federal spending and Federal debt. Allowing our Nation to default 
would severely hinder what little growth there is, potentially causing 
the U.S. to slip back into another recession and risk another 
downgrading of our credit rating.
  For these reasons, default is unacceptable; and that is why House 
Republicans, we think weeks, perhaps months ahead of trying to finally 
address this issue, we think it's time that our ideas are on the floor 
of the House of Representatives, talking openly, not just among 
ourselves and with the administration, but also the American people. 
And that is the purpose of us being here today.
  House Republicans are willing to work with our colleagues in the 
Senate, as well, and also at the White House; and we'd like to find a 
compromise that would raise the debt limit, while simultaneously 
enacting meaningful legislation that will fix our Nation's broken tax 
system.
  We need to create jobs through job enrichment, through a Tax Code 
that is vibrant and does not harm job creation, that does not do things 
that would cause people to want to not invest in this country because 
of taxes

[[Page 6434]]

that are out of control and spending that harms their business.
  So we want to rein in our out-of-control spending and reform our 
ballooning entitlement programs to preserve them for generations to 
come. It should be our responsibility.
  We, as Members of Congress, were elected by the people, and we should 
be able to come and face tough issues with good answers. We should not 
try and scare people back home. We should be able to tell the truth 
about the legislation, and we need to be honest about the circumstances 
of the pathway that we remain on because of our President's and the 
Democrats' agenda.
  So, unfortunately, President Obama has already stated that he is 
unwilling to negotiate with the House or the Senate over the debt 
limit.

                              {time}  1250

  It is this President when he was a Senator who voted repeatedly 
against a debt limit increase, called it irresponsible and a lack of 
leadership; and yet today he says just give him all the power, he'll 
take care of this himself. As such, the bill before us today is a 
necessary and prudent safety net designed to avoid economic calamity 
should we reach the debt limit and not have resolved that between the 
House, the Senate, and the President.
  I applaud Congressman Tom McClintock, my dear friend from California, 
and our great young chairman from Michigan, Dave Camp, chairman of the 
Ways and Means Committee. Each of them brings their work product to the 
floor today, as well as many of our other colleagues such as my Rules 
Committee member, the young man from Orlando, Florida, Dan Webster, who 
brought forth ideas that would help shape not only the legislation that 
we have today, but the desire of the Republican conference to make sure 
that we continue to talk about the issues and problems that we see 
before they become a crisis, before they become something that is 
unworkable and rather to share our great ideas now. So for the timeless 
work on this issue, I thank all three of them for working on this bill 
today.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes.'' I encourage them to vote 
``yes'' on the rule, I encourage them to be thoughtful and truthful 
about the legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, my friend from 
Texas, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes and yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, before I really begin, I want to make clear that what 
the President said in his statement of disapproval and veto, that he 
would not negotiate over this foolish bill, that he was not going to 
negotiate what to do if we go into default because his intent, as well 
as the intent of the Democratic Party, is not to default.
  It's right honest, but instead of really talking about today lifting 
the debt limit, we're going to discuss the usual do-nothing legislative 
agenda: let's fiddle while Rome burns and pass a one-House bill that 
the Senate will never touch and the President will never see, which is 
what we do here once, sometimes twice, a week.
  But today, I think they've really outdone themselves. Instead of 
wasting time on a bill that can be characterized as redundant like we 
do the 35, 36 times that we vote against health care, the majority is 
now considering legislation that treads into the realm of the 
precarious.
  Regardless of whether the legislation before us is approved by this 
Chamber, the very fact that the majority is proposing policies to 
manage the economic default is by itself a threat to our economy. Both 
the Treasury and outside experts have made clear that picking and 
choosing which debts we pay is legally questionable and logistically 
impossible.
  The President has, as my colleague said, warned that in the highly 
unlikely event that this bill reaches his desk, he will unequivocally 
veto it. But instead of listening to this fact, the majority is moving 
ahead with a proposal and a debate that puts us on the road to default. 
They do so even as The Washington Post reports this morning that the 
economy is improving, revenues are up and spending is down, which 
undermines the stream of doom that we hear. But today the irresponsible 
actions of the majority are, once again, needlessly encouraging the 
economic recovery.
  Let me be clear: the legislation does not raise the debt ceiling, 
which is the only way to take away the threat of default; but, instead, 
the bill guarantees that when we hit the debt ceiling, our foreign 
creditors and the Social Security trust fund will be paid in full while 
the well-being of millions of Americans--vendors and people we owe 
legitimate debts to--are left to chance.
  Under this legislation, the majority is actively putting the 
interests of China before millions of Americans, including Active 
military servicemembers, veterans, and even the men and women who clean 
the floors of the Capitol and fold napkins in the Members' dining room. 
Every single one of these citizens relies upon their paycheck and upon 
the United States Government to pay the debts in order to put the food 
on their tables and to make ends meet.
  With today's bill, the majority is proposing that the welfare of 
these Americans be left to chance while they protect China and foreign 
bondholders from the threat of default. In addition, the majority is 
endangering the regular payments owed to infrastructure projects, food 
safety inspectors, education programs, and public health research. It 
is a reckless plan that would directly hurt the most vulnerable members 
of society who already struggle in the sequestration to get by.
  Furthermore, the act of choosing whom we will repay when we default 
on our debt is in and of itself an act that will threaten to throw our 
economy back into recession. During the recent hearing of the Committee 
on Ways and Means, the MIT economist Simon Johnson warned that if we 
default on even a portion of our debt, the unemployment rate would more 
than double, countless companies would go out of business, and 
investors would flee the United States.
  Meanwhile, The Economist magazine has written:

       Failure to raise the debt ceiling would force immediate 
     spending cuts equal to 6 percent of GDP. Not only would that 
     threaten to send the economy back into recession; it would 
     also deprive doctors, pensioners, contractors, and millions 
     of others the money needed to meet their own obligations and 
     set off a chain reaction of defaults. Even a few days' 
     default would roil the global financial system which relies 
     on Treasuries in countless transactions. The mere possibility 
     could incite skittish investors to dump their holdings, 
     driving up interest rates.

  Tony Fratto, a former spokesperson for President George W. Bush, 
said:

       Prioritization is impossible. Is the government really 
     going to be in the position of withholding benefits, 
     salaries, rent, contractual payments, and so forth in order 
     to pay off Treasury bondholders? That would be a political 
     catastrophe.

  It should be clear by now that the act of even bringing a bill such 
as this to the floor for debate can scare investors and endanger our 
economy. This type of economic brinksmanship is extremely dangerous. 
The majority's games are compounded by their uninterest in repealing 
the sequester. As we speak, the sequester is preventing thousands of 
cancer patients from receiving lifesaving treatment and keeping 
thousands more children from receiving the education--I think 70,000 is 
the figure--through the Head Start program. These are some of the 
devastating cuts that don't go away simply because the majority refuses 
to take action and repeal the sequester in full.
  Tragically, the majority's willingness to endanger our economy is not 
new. In August of 2011, the majority headed down the road to default 
for the first time in our history by threatening to default on our 
debts. Despite the opportunity to reach compromise with the 
administration, the majority claimed a zero-sum political game that had 
serious consequences. And because of their actions, August 2011 was the 
worst month for job creation in 3 years. The Dow Jones Industrial 
Average plunged 2,000 points, and our Nation's credit rating was 
downgraded for

[[Page 6435]]

the very first time. The effects were very real and very dangerous. A 
responsible legislative body would never head down that road again a 
second time. But that's exactly what we're doing here today.
  For more than 225 years, this Chamber has been dedicated to 
preserving the order and stability of our government even in the most 
partisan of times. Despite their differences, generation after 
generation of legislators has known that when it comes to the integrity 
of our Nation, we must succeed together or else fall alone.
  Dangerously in the last 2 years, the majority has taken step after 
step to undermine the central pillar of our government, including the 
proposal that they put forward today. We've frequently done so through 
a closed legislative process. And while the majority states that 
today's legislation is moving forward under a structured rule, it is 
only structured for the Members of the majority.
  For the second time this week, the majority is bringing forth a rule 
that denies consideration of a single Democrat amendment. As a result, 
we debate a dangerous proposal and one that puts the interests of China 
before the welfare of the American people and the economic stability of 
the United States.
  Yesterday, the Speaker of the House was asked if the proposal laid 
before us would indeed pay China before paying U.S. troops. He admitted 
that it would and said:

       Listen, those who have loaned us money, like in any other 
     proceeding, if you will, court proceeding, the bondholders 
     usually get paid first. The same thing here.

  That simple statement tells us what we need to know.

                              {time}  1300

  I refuse to put China's interests before the interests of the 
American people, and I refuse to sit silently as the majority moves us 
one step closer to default.
  I urge my colleagues to please vote ``no'' on today's rule and the 
underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, one of the Members of Congress that I 
spoke about that not only brought pieces of this legislation to the 
Ways and Means Committee but really as part of the debate for our 
conference and to the American people is our next speaker.
  I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Elk Grove, California (Mr. 
McClintock).
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule to bring the Full Faith 
and Credit Act to the House floor.
  I had hoped that amidst all the controversies gripping this Congress 
that certainly we should at least be able to agree that the full faith 
and credit of the United States Government should not hang in the 
balance every time there's a fiscal debate in Washington. 
Unfortunately, even so commonsense a proposition as this cannot produce 
a consensus in today's Congress.
  This bill simply guarantees the debt of the United States. No matter 
what political storms are raging in Washington, the public credit must 
be maintained. Yet this President and his followers--who have taken our 
Nation on the biggest borrowing binge in its history, who have run up 
more debt than almost all of his predecessors put together--oppose this 
commonsense attempt to assure credit markets that whatever else happens 
in Washington, their loans to this government are absolutely safe.
  You know, most States have had similar provisions in their laws or 
constitutions guaranteeing their debt for generations. Last year, in 
testimony to the Senate, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke praised these State 
provisions for maintaining confidence in State and municipal markets. 
He told our own House Budget Committee that a similar measure at the 
Federal level would help protect our Nation against the threat of 
default.
  The President and his followers argue that this is somehow an excuse 
for not paying our other obligations. What absolute nonsense. I 
challenge them to name one Member of Congress who has ever suggested 
that this measure is an acceptable alternative to not paying our other 
bills.
  Their reliance on this falsehood is a measure of the bankruptcy of 
their argument. Do they actually suggest that all of these other 
States--that have guaranteed their sovereign debts for many 
generations--have ever used these guarantees as an excuse not to pay 
their other bills? On the contrary, by providing clear and unambiguous 
mandates to protect their credit first, they actually support and 
maintain their ability to pay for all of their other obligations.
  The gentlelady from New York puts forth the argument that this 
measure would put foreign creditors ahead of programs serving 
Americans. Well, I would remind her that public credit is what makes 
possible all of the other programs of this government, from paying our 
troops to seniors' health care. Without it, we cannot pay our other 
bills.
  I would also remind her that most of the public debt is held by 
Americans--much of it through American pension funds. China holds less 
than 10 percent. So the overwhelming effect of this measure is to 
protect the investments that Americans have made in their own 
government while protecting the credit that supports every other 
expenditure of this government, including our troops.
  In its original form, this measure restated the already existing 
authority of the Treasury Department to prioritize the other 
obligations in order to assure prompt and full payment of the debt, and 
added a mandate requiring it to do so. The committee's much simpler and 
more practical approach directs the Treasury Secretary to pay the debt, 
even if it means temporarily borrowing outside the debt limit in order 
to do so. I want to thank it for this improvement, which I gratefully 
acknowledge and wholeheartedly endorse.
  Let me say this again: no one advocates that this government delay 
paying any of its bills, and this legislation does no such thing. 
Indeed, this measure protects our ability to pay all of our other bills 
because paying those bills depends on maintaining the Nation's credit.
  But given the precarious nature of our Nation's finances, principle 
disputes over how the debt limit is addressed are going to happen from 
time to time. I remember just a few years ago when then-Senator Barack 
Obama vigorously opposed increasing the debt limit sought by the Bush 
administration. Well, I've never equated Mr. Obama's opposition to the 
debt limit increase as anything other than a principled and well-placed 
concern over the proper management of our finances. It's sad that he 
cannot grant the motives of his opposition the same courtesy.
  But when these controversies erupt--as they inevitably will do in a 
free society--it is imperative that credit markets are supremely 
confident that their loans are secure.
  So I say this a third time: an impasse on the debt limit is something 
much to be avoided because it could do enormous damage to our Nation's 
prestige and its prosperity. But there is one thing that could do even 
more damage than delaying payments on our other bills, and that is the 
threat of a default on our sovereign debt. This measure takes that 
threat off the table. It assures credit markets that their investments 
in the United States are as certain as anything that can be had in this 
life.
  Mr. Speaker, let us pass this rule and proceed with consideration of 
the bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the ranking member on Ways and 
Means.
  Mr. LEVIN. You know, when you boil this all down, essentially what 
this bill says is pay some bills first and not others. I came here 
because, if the rule passes, we'll have a full discussion tomorrow, but 
I wanted to share with everybody the story that I saw this morning. 
It's accurate.
  The headline is: ``John Boehner on Debt Ceiling: Let's Pay China 
First, Then U.S. Troops.'' That headline in

[[Page 6436]]

Huff Post is based on an interview with the Speaker on Bloomberg TV by 
Peter Cook. I quote Mr. Cook:

       Doesn't it mean, as Democrats have suggested, that you're 
     basically choosing to pay China before you pay U.S. troops?
       The Speaker: Listen, those who have loaned us money, like 
     in any other proceeding, if you will, court proceeding, the 
     bondholders usually get paid first. Same thing here.

  Then the Speaker says, to conclude his comments as to the 
Administration:

       If it comes to the point where they don't have enough money 
     to pay the bills, here is some order that we think is sound.

  It's not sound. As the SAP says, it's not workable. It endangers our 
economy. I quote Keith Hennessey, a former Bush administration 
economist:

       It would be the first step to becoming a banana republic. A 
     bloody mess.

  As mentioned earlier by our distinguished ranking member on the Rules 
Committee, another Bush administration official, Tony Fratto, said:

       Prioritization is impossible. Is the government really 
     going to be in the position of withholding benefits, 
     salaries, rent, contract payments in order to pay off 
     Treasury bondholders?

  Almost half, by the way, are held by foreigners. So it isn't sound 
also to choose some over others. So I just wanted to go through the 
list, if I might, so everybody understands essentially what this is 
saying.
  China and other bondholders first, not American troops in harm's way.
  China first, not retired and disabled veterans.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. LEVIN. China first, not doctors and hospitals treating Medicare 
patients.
  China first, not American small businesses who provide goods and 
services.
  China and others first, not school lunch programs.
  China and others first, not universities doing medical research.
  China and other bondholders first, not college students who earn Pell 
Grants, or taxpayers due refunds, or other Federal trust funds holding 
Treasury bonds--for example, Medicare trust funds, deposit insurance, 
highway and airport trust funds, and the Federal Housing Authority.

                              {time}  1310

  In a word, this is irresponsible. Default is default is default. The 
Republicans are playing with fire, I think, to gain political leverage. 
Instead, they should think of the national interest.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We've had an opportunity once again today, as we did yesterday, to 
hear from the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, the 
gentleman from Michigan. He brought his ideas, the best ideas he had, 
up to the Rules Committee yesterday on this same issue.
  But the issues that the gentleman speaks about are attacking our 
answers. Their answer that they propose is tax increases and spending 
increases, and that way we'll simply have more money into the system. 
Because as we've already heard today just a few minutes ago, the more 
money we give in unemployment compensation, the more vitality is in our 
cities, more spending takes place, more unemployment compensation, more 
vitality, more spending in our cities.
  Mr. Speaker, that's the wrong way to go. The Republican Party does 
not believe that we should create a permanent underclass of people who 
receive unemployment compensation or who are afraid of facing the truth 
about where this country is headed.
  The facts of the case are other countries are ahead of us on this 
curve. Most of them are in Europe, and they ignored the signs that 
Republicans are here talking about today, the signs of spending too 
much, relying on its people to raise taxes for them to bring money in, 
and a big government continuing to put rules and regulations and 
impediments in front of people.
  The facts of the case are simple. We are here today because it is 
President Obama and the Democrats who spent too much money, who are 
destroying jobs, and who even today are holding back the Keystone 
pipeline, what could be thousands of jobs for people in this country, 
lessen our reliance on other parts of the world for our energy, and 
bring back American-made jobs. This is exactly why we are having 
problems.
  So, it's the Republican Party that is trying to offer a public 
discussion, a public debate, including our great Speaker, John Boehner, 
who says we need to make sure that part of the debate comes down to, if 
we get to that point, that we pay back the people who loaned us money 
in the first place. They need to have confidence that they can continue 
loaning us money because we are still having to borrow a lot of money.
  I can think of few things that would be worse than to publicly 
announce we are going to pay somebody else before we pay back our 
creditors. That is how creditors no longer lend any money to you.
  So, what Republicans are doing is having a public debate. We are 
bringing this to the floor. And I do recognize our friends on the other 
side, our Democrat friends, that they want to spend more and tax more. 
They have never seen enough spending in this place. They want more and 
more. They are like our President--they have an insatiable appetite to 
spend people's money. And then, like, literally, somebody who started a 
fire, is an arsonist, show up as the firefighter, the hero, to say, but 
I want to save our country.
  They created the economic malaise that we have. It is overspending, 
it's holding back job creation, and Republicans are going to stand on 
the floor and have this debate with the media and the American people 
and the administration and say, let's know what we are going to do when 
we get there months ahead of time so that we don't falter like we did 
some time ago, and take on the President's idea again of sequestration 
only to have him argue against his own idea later and then try to 
mislead the American public what this whole issue is about. It's about 
the economic demise of the United States of America and how we are 
having to work here to make sure that we publicly discuss this before 
it becomes too late.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from California, one of our impressive freshmen, Mr. 
Huffman.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the impossibly misnamed 
Full Faith and Credit Act, a bill which would actually make a mockery 
of our country's full faith and credit. It prepares our country for 
default by prioritizing payments to Wall Street and foreign governments 
over nearly every other national obligation.
  We've seen the disastrous effects on our credit rating, our stock 
market, and our economic recovery when Congress plays political games 
with the debt ceiling, but here we go again.
  Why would my colleagues across the aisle prioritize paying the 
Chinese Government over paying our troops in Afghanistan? What about 
air traffic controllers, FBI investigators, disabled veterans, small 
businesses who contract with the government, doctors who treat Medicare 
patients? This bill says it's okay to stiff all of them, as long as 
Chinese bondholders are paid in full.
  Mr. Speaker, it's time to move forward with House-Senate negotiations 
on a final budget resolution that strengthens the economy and avoids 
default. That's what we've been asking Speaker Boehner to do. Instead 
of taking that responsible step, we are here today considering a bill 
that will take us closer to the brink of economic chaos.
  For the sake of American workers and businesses, I urge my colleagues 
to reject this dangerous bill.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Once again, the dominant theme from our friends on the other side 
seems to be China first, this pays China

[[Page 6437]]

first. That's the constant refrain we're hearing.
  Let me again remind them, China holds about 10 percent of our debt; 
Americans hold more than half of it. All of our spending from this 
government depends on maintaining our credit.
  That means whoever is loaning us money, whether China or Timbuktu, 
whether it's the Teamsters pension fund or a child's savings bond that 
they've gotten for their birthday, we are borrowing over a quarter of 
everything that we spend. If we cannot borrow, if the confidence of the 
credit markets is ever compromised, this whole house of cards collapses 
around us, a house of cards constructed by this administration's 
profligate borrowing.
  Our credit is now bearing a greater burden and strain that it has 
ever borne before. All this measure suggests is that we should at least 
reinforce that credit with exactly the same guarantees that most of our 
States have successfully employed for generations and, I would remind 
my friend from California, California has had in its Constitution for 
over 100 years.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper).
  Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, I'm opposed to the rule, and I'm opposed to 
the Pay China First bill. It is my understanding that they've added 
something, I think it's called the Camp amendment, that would make sure 
that Members of Congress are not paid if the Nation, in fact, defaults. 
This borrows an idea that I introduced back in the summer of 2011, H.R. 
2653. We had a number of bipartisan cosponsors.
  I'm worried, though, that despite imitation being the sincerest form 
of flattery they've diluted this concept to make it unconstitutional. 
Due to the 27th Amendment, it is unconstitutional to adjust Member pay 
during a session. We had it drafted so that Members would be paid last, 
which would pretty much ensure that we would not be paid. Perhaps 
they've corrected the drafting on their side.

                              {time}  1320

  They've also done this to me once before this year. They took our no 
budget-no pay idea that the No Labels group had sponsored, which has 
now become law, but they took out the heart of it. Right now, we should 
be having a House-Senate conference since both Houses have finally 
passed legislation. The Senate being the laggard, now after 4 years, 
they've finally passed a budget, but now we're refusing to conference 
the budget.
  I am a believer in pay-for-performance. The American taxpayers are 
not getting their money's worth from today's Congress. They should be 
getting their money's worth, and I think these concepts about 
penalizing Congress when we fail to do our job are very powerful 
concepts; but they should be given full strength, not diluted and 
unconstitutional treatment in a quicky amendment such as is being 
offered here. The core idea of pay-for-performance I hope that more of 
my colleagues will look at because Congress does many things right, and 
we should be rewarded for that. We fail in many ways, and we should be 
penalized for that.
  Today, sadly, the only people in America who are not able to pay 
Congress by performance are the taxpayers. Those special interests are 
paying us by performance all the time whether in PAC contributions or 
in post-retirement job opportunities. That is one reason this Congress 
is not performing to full capability. It is one reason we are not 
living up to our potential. So, as we look at this concept, at this 
Camp amendment, please let's do it right. Please, let's make sure that 
Congress is not paid for failure.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge Mr. Cooper's presence here today. 
His idea was valid and, in fact, was utilized in what we have done.
  The slight difference of how I'd like to describe this to the 
gentleman is: we did not say that Members cannot be paid. What we said 
is that no new debt can be used to pay Members. So, if we're spending 
40 percent too much money today and if 60 percent were coming in, we 
could be paid out of that amount, but we could not be paid out of the 
debt-side amount, which is what this legislation is about and why this 
legislation is germane.
  I do thank the gentleman. I thank the gentleman for his idea that 
Members of Congress should equally suffer or equally gain as the 
American people have. In this circumstance, it's a loss for all of us, 
and that is why Chairman Camp included this as an amendment. It was to 
make sure that we clarified: As part of this bill, Members of Congress 
could not be paid with new debt that was being brought to the United 
States.
  So I hope that clarifies not only the success that we believe that 
Mr. Cooper brought with his ideas but also the intent of what this 
legislation actually does, what we spoke about in the Rules Committee 
and the fine line between paying a Member and whether it comes from new 
debt or whether it comes from operating entities that would be within 
the 60 percent that would not be the new debt. I hope this clarifies 
not only what we are trying to do but that we speak forthrightly to 
Members about what this legislation actually is.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Article I, section 8.1:

       The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, 
     duties, imposts, and excises to pay the debts and provide for 
     the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

  Now Amendment 14, section 4:

       The validity of the public debt of the United States . . . 
     including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties 
     for services . . . shall not be questioned.

  But that's precisely what the Republican Party, the Republican 
majority, is doing today. I have many friends on the Republican side of 
the aisle whom I respect, but I've never been as disappointed in them 
as I am today.
  ``Pari passu.'' That means ``equal.'' The United States of America, 
for 235 years, has treated all of its creditors equally. If you're the 
landlord, if you get a salary, if you mow the lawn on the National 
Mall, you get paid at the same time that somebody who loans money to 
the United States gets paid. Everybody gets paid. That's how we treat 
it. We don't treat it that China or Wall Street or Saudi Arabia, 
because they've loaned us money, gets paid before the nurse working in 
one of our VA hospitals. That's not America. That is wrong. That is not 
how we run our country. It is unconstitutional.
  I'd say to my friends that this short, little bill of yours to 
prioritize our debts is exactly the wrong thing to do. If I were a 
credit-rating agency, I'd say, if you're prioritizing your debts, 
you're getting ready to not pay somebody. Everybody is treated equally. 
If I were that credit rating agency, I would downgrade us today.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I'd say to my friends on the Republican side of the 
aisle, to the majority party: Don't do this. This is wrong. This is not 
our Nation.
  We have built this Nation on equality, and that includes the equality 
of payment. Whether you're a landlord or if you work for the country or 
if you're a veteran, whatever it may be, you get paid. That's how we 
operate it.
  We in this Congress have the ability not only to raise the revenue 
that's needed to do that but to manage our expenses, but we don't stiff 
anybody. So I'd say to my friends: Withdraw this bill now. It is bad 
legislation. It is wrong for this Nation. Get rid of it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 5 minutes to the 
chairman of the Financial Services Committee, the Member from the Fifth 
District of Texas, the gentleman from Dallas, Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Rules 
Committee for yielding, Mr. Speaker.
  I also want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), 
who

[[Page 6438]]

has been, perhaps, the most cogent defender of the Constitution on the 
floor of the United States House of Representatives and who has 
provided his leadership today to ensure that we do not have default on 
sovereign debt but that we put this Nation on a path to fiscal sanity, 
and I thank him for his leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, the folks in the Fifth Congressional District of Texas, 
whom I'm proud to represent, have a lot of insecurity about their 
personal economy, and they have great fear that their children will not 
enjoy a brighter future.
  I heard my friend, the gentleman from Colorado, say that everyone 
gets paid. Well, maybe that's part of the problem. Maybe that is one of 
the reasons under President Obama's leadership there has been more debt 
created in the last 4 years than in our Nation's first 200. We are 
awash in debt. We know that we have a debt, not because we have 
insufficient taxes, but because we spend too much. Math is a pesky 
thing.
  In the last 10 years, the Department of Ag: up 114 percent; HUD: up 
61 percent; HHS: up 79 percent. Our total government spending has 
increased 70 percent; and measured by median family income, the family 
budget, which has to pay for the Federal budget, it is down 6 percent.
  Now, some have said, You know, revenues are a problem. Well, revenues 
are up 52 percent, but you can't raise taxes enough to chase the 
spending that the Democrats and the President want to foist upon the 
American people. They have put us on a path to national bankruptcy. At 
some point, we've got to quit spending money we don't have. Again, we 
are on the precipice of a debt crisis, and we have it because of too 
much spending.
  To some of my friends on the other side of the aisle, their answer to 
the debt ceiling is to get rid of it. Some have introduced legislation 
just to get rid of the debt ceiling.

                              {time}  1330

  That's kind of like, Mr. Speaker, a fire breaks out in your home and 
your response is to unplug the smoke detector because of that nuisance 
noise in the background that maybe your house is on fire. I would 
remind my friends on the other side of the aisle, Greece didn't have a 
debt ceiling vote, and yet we have Democrats who say, No, let's just 
get rid of it.
  But for those who believe that we're not going to get rid of it, we 
have other friends from across the aisle who essentially want to use it 
as a hostage for something that is not a debt. A debt is when you go 
out and you borrow money and you must pay it back. Every family 
understands this. It's one thing for an American family to borrow money 
to pay their mortgage versus borrowing money so that they can pay for a 
Las Vegas vacation that they would like to take. They are not 
equivalent.
  Mr. Speaker, paying sovereign debt is not the same thing as borrowing 
money so that this institution and this town can continue to spend 
money for pottery classes in Morocco, to pay for the travel expenses of 
the Alabama Watermelon Queen, to pay for robotic squirrels and all the 
rest of the lunacy that this Federal Government spends and in the end 
takes bread off the table of hardworking American families.
  Mr. Speaker, we believe that the President has this power, but he 
says, No, I don't have this power. So I find it ironic that we're 
willing to codify what we already believe to be the law of the land, 
and the President says, No, I want to veto that. Again, he wants to use 
this as a hostage.
  This is a very simple bill introduced by the gentleman from 
California to require our Treasury to make good on all of our debt 
payments. That's it. We must stop borrowing money to squander our 
children's future. This bill will help us do this.
  But the Democrats, they don't want to take this specter of default 
off the table. It's the only way they can continue spending. They say 
they do. If they do, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to seeing their name 
up on the big board soon.
  This is the right thing and the smart thing to do, and I urge that 
the House, adopt this rule and adopt the bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to talk about 
what it is we're trying to pay for on our side:
  Pay and benefits for 1.4 million active duty troops and 780,000 
troops in reserves will not be paid while China is paid;
  Benefits to 3.4 million disabled veterans;
  1.3 million veterans receiving education or home purchasing 
assistance;
  Earned payments to American small businesses;
  Payments to 1.1 million doctors and health care practitioners who 
provide care to seniors with Medicare;
  Payments to schools for nutritious lunches served to 32 million 
children;
  Payments to 44,000 National Institutes of Health grantees.
  With that, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill would raise the debt ceiling, but only insofar 
as necessary and only for the purpose of paying our debts to China and 
to Social Security.
  Not raising the debt ceiling beyond what this bill does would mandate 
not paying Medicare beneficiaries or our troops overseas or our 
veterans here at home or anyone owed money for working for the Federal 
Government and would generally collapse the economy by forcing default 
on most of our debts.
  Raising the debt ceiling merely allows us to pay debts we have 
previously incurred--all debts previously incurred. We should recognize 
this simple reality by eliminating the debt ceiling and passing 
responsible budgets. But Republicans now use the debt ceiling to hold 
the entire country hostage unless the demands that they haven't figured 
out yet are met. This reminds me of a 1930s gangster film: it's a nice 
restaurant you've got over there; it's a nice economy you've got over 
there; pity if it should happen to blow up if you don't meet our 
demands.
  This Republican tactic has already brought about the first downgrade 
in the U.S. credit rating in history and has brought about brutal 
spending cuts that have punished the middle class, failed to help the 
millions of Americans looking for work, and weakened the safety net for 
working families and seniors.
  Mr. Speaker, it was two wars and two Bush tax cuts and 8 years of 
irresponsibility that brought us the deficit in the last budget adopted 
under George Bush of 10.1 percent of GDP. We have reduced that budget 
deficit in 3 years from 10.1 percent of GDP to 4.8 percent today. This 
is the fastest deficit reduction since the demobilization after World 
War II.
  Economists agree that the draconian austerity decreed by the 
sequester is slowing our economic growth, eliminating millions of jobs, 
and could create a double-dip recession. We have seen this in Europe 
where, starting 2\1/2\ years ago, they adopted the policies the 
Republicans want. They adopted severe austerity and they cut budgets 
too much. The result is a double-dip recession. With their negative 
economic growth, we're still at positive economic growth.
  We're hearing from our Republican friends today about how endangered 
our credit rating is. Our credit rating is so endangered, despite their 
frightening rhetoric, that we are paying the lowest interest rates on 
our bonds ever, and our bonds are selling higher. People are getting in 
line to buy our bonds because our credit rating is, in fact, quite 
good.
  Yet, in spite of presenting the American people with a plan to invest 
in our economy and create jobs for the 12 million Americans looking for 
work, Republicans are once again intent on manufacturing a crisis that 
will only increase unemployment. We should not develop a plan for how 
to generate and then manage a devastating default that will put our 
economy into chaos; we should repeal the sequester, slow down our 
deficit reduction, spend the money on highways and bridges and 
infrastructure investing and putting our

[[Page 6439]]

people back to work so that more people work, unemployment goes down, 
government spending and unemployment insurance and food stamps go down, 
and the economy improves and our unemployment also goes down. That's 
the proper path.
  What the Republicans are trying to do would say, Don't do that. 
Follow the path of Europe. Get 12 percent or 15 percent unemployment. 
This bill would head us in that direction. That's not the direction we 
should be going.
  We ought to safeguard our credit and not even contemplate the 
possibility of default.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York has 7\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Texas has 4 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cardenas).
  Mr. CARDENAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House Resolution 
202 and H.R. 807 because the last time Congress did something this dumb 
it cost the American public $19 billion over the next 10 years. Why? 
Because our credit rating was downgraded for the first time in the 
history of the United States. Let's not do something like that again.
  That does not help the economy, and it doesn't put anyone to work. 
All it does is make sure that everybody around the world who loves to 
buy American-backed paper just gets more money for it, which means more 
money out of the pockets of Americans for one reason and one reason 
only: to have the optics of politics of a bill like this that actually 
basically states that we are not going to back the paper that people 
buy.
  That is something that is not within our American values. That's 
something that doesn't even need to see the light of day. And it's a 
shame that we would play politics with the American dollar and we would 
play politics with the reputation of this great country by having these 
two bills before us.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire if my colleague has any 
more requests for time?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Except for my final close, I do not. And I thank the 
gentlewoman.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank the gentleman.
  Let me introduce the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, if we can defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule that will allow the House to hold a vote on the 
Student Loan Relief Act.
  If Congress doesn't act, next month undergraduate students across the 
country will see a hike in their student loan interest rates. If my 
Republican colleagues want to talk about debt priority, this should be 
a part of the dialogue.
  To discuss the proposal, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the previous 
question.
  As the gentlelady said, defeat of the previous question will allow 
her to propose, instead, an amendment to the rule to a bill that 
intentionally degrades the full faith and credit of our country, sets 
that aside and instead allows for consideration of the Student Loan 
Relief Act, a measure which will prevent the subsidized Stafford 
student loan program from doubling in 53 days.

                              {time}  1340

  Let me again reiterate that point. On July 1, if Congress does not 
act, the subsidized Stafford student loan program, which provides 
student loan assistance to over 7 million young Americans, will double 
from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. We have heard a lot of talk on the 
floor here today about debt and about trying to protect the young 
people of this country. Well, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York 
recently issued its latest update regarding student loan debt in this 
country, which is now $1.1 trillion. It's higher than credit card debt, 
and it is higher than car loan debt.
  When we talk about the challenges facing, particularly, young people 
in this country who are trying to get the opportunity to upgrade their 
skills, something that this recession has taught us painfully is 
necessary because the unemployment rate of people with high school 
degrees or less is three times as high as people with 4-year degrees, 
the fact of the matter is that the subsidized Stafford student loan 
program is a lifeline in terms of young people being able to pay the 
rising cost of tuition.
  Despite the fact that we have a ticking clock of 53 days and only 24 
session days scheduled between now and July 1, the majority has not 
brought a single proposal forward to avoid this catastrophe from 
happening to young people all across the country.
  The Student Loan Relief Act, which I am the lead cosponsor of, has 
over 125 cosponsors here in the House, will extend the lower rate for 2 
years, and will allow this Chamber to once and for all get its arms 
around this serious, critical problem for the future of this country. 
The fact of the matter is that the student loan debt issue requires a 
comprehensive rewrite of the Higher Education Authorization Act which 
will give tools to young people, starting in high school, to make 
better choices about where they go to school, how they're going pay for 
it, with better awareness and information. It would also allow people 
who have graduated to be able to refinance their debt so they can lower 
those monthly payments.
  Again, talk to the Realtors in this country about what's holding back 
the housing market. Young people in their twenties and thirties who are 
carrying student loan debt of 60, 70, $80,000 are not in a position to 
go out and buy a house because they can't qualify for a mortgage 
because of these high payments.
  It is time for Congress to focus on what people are really waking up 
in the morning thinking about and worrying about, which is how to pay 
for college.
  Mr. Speaker, on May 1, we just celebrated decision day, which is the 
day when young people make the choice about where they're going to 
college. Unfortunately, they have no clue about whether or not their 
subsidized Stafford loan rate, which has been in place for the last 6 
years, is going to continue beyond July 1.
  It is time for this Chamber to focus on what's important for American 
families. Let's take up the Student Loan Relief Act. Let's pass a 
higher education authorization bill which deals with this issue from 
soup to nuts, and let's set aside this crazy bill which intentionally 
degrades the full faith and credit of our country.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  The fact that this Chamber has dedicated valuable time and resources 
to the consideration of an unconstitutional bill that will put our 
Nation on the road to default is regretful. The fact that this 
legislation puts the economic interests of China before paying our 
soldiers' salaries and providing benefits to our veterans is a 
disgrace.
  The plan presented by the majority fails to raise the debt ceiling, 
which is the only way that we can prevent economic default. Instead, it 
simply wastes another week of valuable time and the $24 million that it 
costs to run this House of Congress for a week and moves us that much 
closer to yet another downgrade in our Nation's credit rating, 
something that had never happened until this majority assumed control 
of the House. And now it is actually possible the majority would lead 
us to the second downgrade of the Nation's credit over the course of 2 
short years.
  On May 19, our Nation will reach its debt ceiling, and emergency 
measures would be put into place to delay default. We've seen this film 
before, and we know how the movie ends--a twisted plot with terrible 
consequences that come by refusing to pay our bills. I urge my 
colleagues not to walk down that road again.

[[Page 6440]]

  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues most 
enthusiastically to vote ``no'' to defeat the previous question. I urge 
a ``no'' vote on the rule. I would like to see this bill withdrawn.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I have been around this place a long time, and I've heard of people 
who did not read bills. I have heard of people who did not understand 
bills, but I have never seen a circumstance such as today where the 
truth was being held hostage.
  The facts of the case are very simple. Republicans today are offering 
a mechanism to the President of the United States and the American 
people that says, if we do get in a circumstance where we do not extend 
our debt to further allow the Federal Government to buy more debt to 
pay its obligations, then we offer this opportunity, and that is that 
the government can, even when we're in a circumstance where we cannot 
borrow more money, and let's say we spend 60 percent that we get money 
in but 40 percent is the debt that we can no longer have available to 
pay our obligations, about a 60/40 split, then we're allowing the 
Federal Government to go borrow more debt to pay its obligations so 
that it doesn't compete against the money that does come in to pay the 
bills of the United States as the President of the United States would 
choose.
  I've never heard of a more reasonable option. We're not telling the 
President how to spend the money. We're giving authorization for new 
debt to pay our debt obligations. That's not cutting people off. It's 
not truthful to say we're going to do that. Anybody that tells you that 
didn't read the bill.
  What this is about is to say, if we go into a debt circumstance where 
we cannot come to an agreement, then we are authorizing the Federal 
Government, the Treasury, to go get more debt, only enough to pay debt 
obligations to where we do not default, and then we work on the 
circumstances of how much money comes in.
  This has been miscast. The truth has been held hostage, and I am 
disappointed in Members of Congress who came down here and misled the 
American people about what this bill is. It is nothing more than 
allowing the Treasury to go borrow money to pay its already obligations 
to people who loaned us money. It says nothing about how they will pay 
normal bills to people. And to come to this floor and to suggest this 
is simply a disservice to the obligations I think that we have to be 
open and honest about what our job is.
  I urge my colleagues to understand the simplification of what this 
bill is about, to not try to twist it to have it become something that 
it is not. I hope my colleagues will vote ``yes'' on the rule and 
``yes'' on the underlying legislation.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

    An Amendment to H. Res. 202 Offered by Ms. Slaughter of New York

       Amendment in the nature of a substitute:
       Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:
       That immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     1595) to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to extend the 
     reduced interest rate for Federal Direct Stafford Loans. The 
     first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points 
     of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
     exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and 
     the Workforce. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All 
     points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. At 
     the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports 
     that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the 
     next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the 
     third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, 
     resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 2. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of the bill specified in the first section of 
     this resolution.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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.

                          ____________________