the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. lewis: madam speaker, i want to thank my friend, mr. levin, for yielding. madam speaker, i rise in strong opposition to the pay china first act. we are the united states of america and we pay our bills. madam speaker, i cannot believe this body would even entertain or consider a bill that puts the social security checks of 56 million seniors and people after china. how can we justify putting two million american military personnel, many whom are in harm's way, after china? that is not right. that is not fair. as a congress, we can do better, much better.

let me be crystal clear. default is not an option. the united states of america pays all of its bills as they come due. his is the american way. let's stop playing games and do what is right. do what is just. do what is fair. let's do what every american citizen has to do, pay our debts. i urge each and every one of my colleagues to vote no on the pay china first act. we have a moral obligation to do what is right. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: thank you. i yield two minutes to a distinguished member of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from arkansas, mr. griffin. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from arkansas is recognized. mr. griffin: thank you, mr. chairman, thank you, madam speaker. i think it's important to say first and foremost that no matter how passionate you are, no matter how loud you scream, it doesn't convert nonsense to facts. the point is china's debt holdings are less than 8%. it makes for a great talking point. i understand that. mr. lewis: if the gentleman will yield? mr. griffin: i will not yield. madam speaker, nobody wants to hit the debt ceiling. in fact, nobody wants to get anywhere near it. on the contrary, we are the ones that are trying to get washington's spending under control so it will live within its means. that's why we talk about budgets and spending and living within our means, because house republicans fight that fight. if we weren't doing it, we wouldn't even know there were

limits to our spending. the house budget does just that. balancing the federal budget in 10 years. we understand we must take precautions to protect the credit worthiness of the united states. we can hope for the best, but we must prepare for the worst and the worst that can happen is a government default. the bill before us today takes default off the table, period, no more, no less. we've been told by the credit rating agencies that the greatest factor affecting our national credit rating is the government's ability to pay its debtholders. this bill -- excuse me -- this bill will make sure it will. this bill requires, not allows, requires treasury to continue to pay principal and interest on existing debt if and only if we hit the debt ceiling before a deal is reached. this is a backstop that takes

default off the table. mr. camp: i yield to the gentleman an additional 30 seconds. mr. griffin: with it we can focus on the other issues of debt and spending that created the problem in the first place. we can have an honest debate about what is driving government debt and how to deal with it. i hope we don't get anywhere near the debt ceiling limit. i hope we use the next few months to negotiate and reach an agreement that avoids any risk of hitting the debt ceiling. but until then i agree it is our duty to protect america's credit rating. i urge support of this measure. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: i now yield a minute and a half to mr. neal, another very distinguished member of our committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. neal: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. neal: madam speaker, i stand in opposition to the republican proposal today to pay china first.

now, i any there is another way we can describe this legislation from our republican friends and it would go like this. let's balance the budget when bill clinton's president and let's balance the budget when barack obama's president but in the intervening eight years let's go on a reckless spending spree and cut taxes by $2.3 trillion. engage two wars internationally, embrace a prescription drug bill, spend the country into oblivion and cut taxes for the wealthiest people. recall, balance the budget when bill clinton is president and balance the budget when barack obama is president. worry about the debt, not when george bush is president, but only when you have democratic presidents. this is a reckless proposal today and everybody knows it. speaker boehner is quoted in one of the dailies this morning as saying, of course we pay the bondholders first. that's a fact.

the previous speaker didn't mention that. he said, let's deal with the facts. so who are the bondholders? they suggest the american people. foreign debt is held by the chinese and the japanese second and everybody knows it. so it's austerity for the american people, but make sure that the bondholders are paid. it's cut back on everything for the american people but make sure the bondholders are paid. and xes by $2.3 trillion not to worry about the austerity of the american people. recall. balance the budget when bill clinton is president. balance the budget win barack obama is president. mr. camp: regular order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: i yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from louisiana, mr. scalise. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for two minutes. mr. scalise: thank you, madam speaker. and i thank the gentleman from

michigan for yielding and for bringing this bill forward. congressman mcclintock's full faith and credit act. i'm proud to be a co-sponsor of the bill because this bill clearly takes default off the table. people say why is this even an issue. unfortunately it's an issue because the only people in town that's been threatening default is president obama and liberals in congress. and you heard some of the speakers against this bill today talking about the threat of default. what's so good about this bill is it takes default off the table. it takes away their ability to default on our nation's debt. in fact, president obama, in the last debt ceiling negotiation almost two years ago, was the one running around the country threatening to default on our credit. so much so that it scared the markets, it hurt our economy and in fact it's one of the things that led to a downgrade. the first time in our nation's history that our credit rating was downgraded, because the problem that gets us to the debt ceiling is that washington

has a spending problem. it's spending that continues to force us to hit the debt ceiling. and so when we're negotiating on the debt ceiling, we shouldn't be worried about the president running around threatening default. we should be focused on fixing the spending problem. americans sent us here to tackle the tough issues, not to be clouded and confused by the president's threats of default. unfortunately, g.a.o. has even said the president can prioritize. he should. it would be responsible to pay your debts. but the president has said himself he would consider defaulting if we hit the debt ceiling. and so what this bill says is, you pay americans first, as the chairman of the ways and means pointed out, it's the american citizens who own the bulk of our debt. they would be paid. social security would be paid. but then we could focus on the spending problem, and the negotiations on the debt ceiling would be about solving the problem in washington that continues to force us to hit the debt ceiling so we can stop living from crisis to crisis

and finally get our economy moving again. i urge passage and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: i now yield a minute and a half to another distinguished member of our committee, mr. larson of connecticut. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from connecticut is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. larson: i thank the gentleman. i rise today to oppose the pay china first act. and i do this with a heavy heart because i know a number of the talented individuals that we have on this committee and a process we've been through where we're working together. it asounds me that somehow the ideological tail of the tea party wags the whole republican effort in this area, and the ideological reach of the tea party exceeds the certainty that we should be bringing to the american people. instead, we're paying hostage

politics again, holding up the american people, creating all the uncertainty that we don't need in this kind of climate. instead of demonstrating we can sit down and work together. i get the politics. i understand how you have to exceed to a group that continues to take us to the precipice and then pull back. the american people are through with it. let's sit down and deal with it and then move on. create the certainty that will create the jobs here. let's not find ourselves in a situation that becomes almost oxymoron, where we're paying china first at the expense of americans when there is no good reason why we should be dealing with this issue whatsoever other than the hostage politics that it creates to deal with an ideological minority that drives the other side. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: i yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is ecognized for two minutes. >> i appreciate my colleague from michigan allowing me to speak here today, my colleague from california, i'm glad to be a co-sponsor of this very important measure. full faith and credit. what does that mean? what does it mean to the american people? when we ask for them to send us to washington, to send us this august place that we're asking for their faith and what we do with their money, their tax dollars. mr. lamalfa: when we report back to them, what does it look like to them? have we upheld their faith? have we done everything in this nation to keep the credit rating of america online?

this measure is a giant step towards keeping that faith to paying our bills on time, to paying the types of things that keep our credit rating in the best possible fashion for our country. we default on that, we put our whole economic system in peril. we drive up the cost of doing business for our government and more tax dollars that cost to run our government when we do that. here talk about pay china first. that's funny. if we didn't do that business with china, if it we paid attention to our own level of spending and grown the economy of this country instead of having to do things to cause debt to go up higher we wouldn't have to contract with them for more debt. that comes back to this place here, reforming the way we do business. we don't need to run up more debt. we don't need to put ourselves in a position that we can't get together on getting the budget done, on getting the debt ceiling adjusted, whatever it takes so we don't fall into

this default position. so i think this is a giant step in the right direction. i commend my colleagues for making this happen, and let's uphold the faith that we've asked of the people of this country by paying our bills on time, by paying the debt, the interest that it takes to keep our credit in line as best possible as we can in this country. so this is a measure that deserves support. it puts priorities first. i ask for support for it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: i now yield a minute and a half to another distinguished member of our committee, mr. blumenauer from oregon. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. blumenauer: i rise in opposition to the pay china first act. simply by putting this legislation on the floor, it does real damage in terms of putting questions in the minds

of people around the world who to this point have been giving billions of dollars to the united states government to be ble to pay for past spending at record low rates. i listened to the last speaker opine we need to do everything to justify the faith in the american people. well, the reckless threats that we saw two years ago where for the first time we really were staring into the face of the abyss and it was a real possibility they would withhold the votes, deny increase in the debt ceiling and for the first time in our history not pay for spending already incurred. in fact, ironically, the ryan budget would have required a massive increase in the debt ceiling. the american people know this and no amount of subterfuge here is going to eliminate that

doubt, that concern, that apprehension. it may give the illusion of a few more days breathing room with the debt ceiling. what we need to do is set this aside and get to business. i would note with no small amount of irony that my friends on the other side of the aisle who have been so interested in a budget now refuse to appoint members for a conference committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. blumenauer: so that the house and the senate can come together and do that. that would be a lot more productive than this charade. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. . mr. camp: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, reserves. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: i yield a minute and a half to another distinguished member of our committee. mr. kind: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. i, too, rise in opposition to the pay china first act.

madam speaker, i for the life of me do not understand why we are even seriously considering this legislation which would call for the default on our nation's financial obligations for the he very first time in our nation's history. completely jeopardize the full faith and credit of the united states of america. jeopardize the economic recovery, which still needs help right now. and it would be the great gratest unforced self-inflicted wound this body could commit against the u.s. economy in our nation's history. let's be clear. this has very little to do about true fiscal responsibility. this issue, this legislation is being driven by a very narrow bunch on the other side with a radical governing philosophy which basically says, i hate my government so much that i'm willing to jeopardize the full faith and credit of the united states and bring this economy down until we get our way. that's what's driving this legislation right now. that's the jeopardy we face. i tout that this has serious

chance of passing, but what the answer to this is for us to go to conference, on the budget resolutions that have now passed the house and senate, and start talking and listening to each other to find the common ground we need to reach a long-term deficit reduction agreement. but defaulting on some of our obligations will mean putting great doubt on the rest of the investors in the united states in regards to who will be next. that's what this legislation is promising. a default with some. a payment of china and others at the expense of the u.s. economy. i encourage my colleagues to vote no on this ill-conceived legislation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: madam speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: madam speaker, i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the snass has passed s. 622, cited as the animal drug and animal generic drug user fee re-authorization act of 2013 which the concurrence of the house is requested.

the speaker pro tempore: gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: i yield a minute and a half to another distinguished member of our committee, mr. pascrell, from the great state of new jersey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. pascrell: i rise, madam chair, in strong opposition to the pay china first act. this is a puric proposal if i ever saw one. by the way the firefighters are in town today and tomorrow. i'm going to go to every firefighter i see in washington, d.c., and them how -- the sponsors of this legislation believe that the federal government has no responsibility to firefighters or police officers anywhere. it's strictly a local thing. so they are not trying to balance a budget. if this bill becomes law, the government will still be borrowing money, and our deficit

will increase. it's what this bill allows us to borrow money for that is so shameful. government allowed to borrow to pay our active duty military? no. can we add to our deficit to fund veteran benefits? no. what about medicare? sorry, we are not going to pay those bills. however the government is allowed to borrow to pay back foreign bondholders. the majority apparently believes it's ok to borrow money and add to our deficit to pay china, but not to honor the obligations we have to our troops, our veterans, our seniors, etc. shameful. this is simply no other word. the united states of america pays its bills. period. end of sentence. case closed. we've done it for 20 years. whether it's obligations we have to our troops or seniors, we have to those who have bought our bonds, we all saw it happen in the summer of 2011.

we don't need a repeat. thank you, madam chair. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: now yield a minute and a half to another member of our committee, distinguished gentleman from new york, mr. crowley. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. crowley: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. crowley: mr. speaker, i rise in strong opposition to the pay china first act. this is a very dangerous debate that we are conducting today because i think it has ramifications beyond the simple debate. it calls into question whether or not america will pay its bills. you can also call this bill, put america last act. because that's exactly what this bill does. a bill that will actually make the tea party policies a reality, turning us into a deadbeat nation. a nation that does not pay its bills. this republican bill will codify into law a new low for america.

it will assure u.s. taxpayers always pay china and other regimes and foreign banks before our veterans, before our seniors on medicare, and even before our enlisted troops bravely serving overseas. that's right. we'll pay these folks before we pay these folks. we pay these folks under this bill before it becomes law before we pay these folks. that simply is wrong and unacceptable to the american people. in addition to putting china first and america last, their bill will also increase the deficit, let me say that again, this bill will also increase the deficit and will pay china first. what the republican majority is doing with this bill is announcing to the world everyone from small businesses to grandmother's buying savings bonds for their grandchildren that this congress is not

serious about paying our nation's bill. my colleagues, please, put americans first. put our troops first, and china last. do not pass the pay china first act. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: i ask unanimous consent to place in the record a letter from the congressional budget office that says this bill has no budget impact. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: it's now my real pleasure to yield two minutes to the ranking member on the budget committee, the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for two minutes. mr. van hollen: thank you, madam speaker. i thank my friend and colleague from michigan. i strongly oppose this bill, which as our colleagues have said, says we should pay the government of china before we pay our troops, before we pay our veterans, before we pay other bills here in the united states. of all the bad ideas that have come to the floor of this house,

this one is one of the worst. it's a reckless, irresponsible proposal that says the united states of america is not going to pay all the bills that are due and owing. that will have a terrible impact on our creditworthiness. it will undermine the full faith and credit of the united states. and it would wreak havoc in the economy. look, madam speaker, our constituents don't have the luxury of waking up one morning and saying you know what? i'm only going to make my mortgage payment. i'm not going to make my car payment. i'm not going to make my credit card payments. if they did that, what would happen? they would lose their creditworthiness. for the united states of america to say we are going to pay some bills but not all would have hugely damaging impacts on the economy. and it gets worse. because when they say we got to pay some but not all, you got to decide who are you going to pay first? and what they decide here is they are going to pay china first, and they have to decide who is not a priority.

in this bill, our veterans are not a priority. our troops risking their lives in afghanistan are not a priority. china is a priority. they are not. now, madam speaker, what will happen here is that peoplelogical lose faith in whether or not the country pays its bills. people need to understand very clearly, this is not about extending the debt ceiling in order to take on new obligations. this is about paying our existing obligations. and if we announce to the world that we are planning on not paying our obligations, whether they are to bondholders or our troops, guess what happens? people will lose faith in the united states government and the economy will get hit hard. let's vote against this bill that says china comes before our troops and veterans. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: in august of 2010

chairman admiral mullen said that the most significant threat to our national security was our debt. since that time we have added hundreds of billions of dollars to our national debt. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. leffy, is recognized. mr. levin: i now yield to a distinguished member, gentlelady from pennsylvania, allyson schwartz. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman -- mr. levin: a minute and a half. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from pennsylvania is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. ms. schwartz: i rise in strong opposition to the republican pay china first bill which would jeopardize the full faith and credit of the united states. this legislation dictates which of our nation's bills we will pay and which we will not. and poses serious, dangerous threat to our economy. the republicans put foreign creditors ahead of our veterans, active duty military, medicare recipients, and small businesses.

the republicans' refusal to pay our nation's bills inflicts another round of unnecessary ruin that weakened our economy in 2011. american families, american workers, american small businesses have battled economic uncertainty for far too long, and this deeply irresponsible legislation will only exacerbate the challenges we face. instead of moving us closer to common ground on a balanced, responsible path for economic growth, republican bringsmanship, threatens to undermine consumer and investor confidence and slow economic growth. i urge opposition to this legislation and instead do what we have always done as americans, pay our bills, pay them on time, pay them in full, and protect america's economy and our financial standing in the global economy. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves.

the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: how much time is there on each side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, has 3 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, has 6 1/2 minutes. mr. camp: i have no further speakers. mr. levin: i now yield a minute and a half to the distinguished gentleman from texas, mr. veasey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. chairman, i rise in strong opposition to the pay china first act. once again republican majority has chosen to play politics with the credit of our nation instead of coming to the table with solution, they are ensuring that we will -- we'll come to a default on our nation's debt this. bill accomplishes one simple goal, pay china first.

if the republicans cause a default on our debt, h.r. 07 would guarantee the bondholders in china and other foreign nations will get paid before our men and women in uniform. honorable veterans, doctors, and hospitals that take care of our senior citizens on medicare will always lose out. are these truly the right priorities for our country, mr. chairman? democrats are focused on job recovery. job growth, securing a future for our hardworking taxpayers and middle class. we are ready to act now on commonsense budget proposals that are balanced and fair. i ask the majority now to stop playing political games and let's work together on commonsense solutions to strengthen our country. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, continues to reserve. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. you vin: so, mr. camp, ready to close this part of our -- i have how much time?

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, has 2 1/2 minutes. mr. levin: thank you. i just want to read the facts why this bill essentially says china first. i want everybody to understand this isn't rhetoric. this is reality. the republicans upped this bill $14.3 trillion in debt. of that $2.7 trillion in social security and $11.6 trillion in public debt. of that public debt, $5.6 trillion is foreign. so when you come up and talk about all of the american

public, you're not talking about what is in this bill. of that foreign debt, the largest debtor, the largest creditor is china with over $1 trillion. so it's absolutely true that will essentially what you're saying is pay the largest of the reign creditors instead of american troops, veterans, physicians, school lunch programs, universities doing medical research, taxpayers doing refunds, and other federal trust funds holding treasury bonds, medicare, these are americans, deposit insurance, highway trust funds, etc., etc. .

that's the fact. now, there's some effort here to say, oh, we're not defaulting. yes, you are. you're not defaulting on sovereign debt, but you're defaulting except for social security on everything else. republicans are becoming lead defaulters in terms of paying our debt. and as i said earlier, the credit agencies have said and i'll close with this. it's not assured that the treasury could -- this is fitch -- debt service over its myriad of other obligations, but very likely prompt downgrade even as the -- continue to be met. this is a drastic, serious mistake. vote no.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized, for 6 1/2 minutes. mr. camp: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. you know, madam speaker, i think it's helpful in a debate like this to start with the facts. and i would just say, it's illustrative of just how out of touch and irresponsible the other side is when they assert that our debt is $14 trillion. our debt is over $16 trillion. they just lost $2 trillion? no wonder they don't think it's an urgent problem. they don't know what our debt is. this legislation is similar to 1996, legislation that was passed in a bipartisan vote and was signed by then-democrat president bill clinton. many states guarantee their government debt or what is often called their sovereign debt, and they have done that for decades. if we default on our government or sovereign debt, the

consequences are so severe that no one gets paid. our military, our seniors, our veterans, our farmers. all americans deserve a strong economy and that means getting ur debt under control. and let's just clear up another fact. the top 2/3 of our debt is held by americans, and their retirement funds, including the u.s. military retirement fund. now, one reason we're in this position is that this administration has racked up more than $5 trillion in debt, more than the previous four presidents added together. that's why we're in this situation. we have a debt problem. this legislation ensures that

the debt of the united states will be paid, and so i urge support for h.r. 807 and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. all time for debate on the bill has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, seek recognition? mr. camp: madam speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment printed in house report 113-52 offered by mr. camp of michigan. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 202, the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: thank you, madam speaker. h.r. 807, the full faith and credit act, makes permanently takes default off the table, as we've been debating, but this amendment makes a couple of simple changes. it says that and clarifies that any debt issued pursuant to

this bill may not be used to pay salaries of members of congress or the -- congress of the house and the senate. it makes clear that every time the secretary of the treasury uses the authority provided in the bill that the secretary must report weekly on the amount of debt issued and the reason of issuance so congress is fully informed. i ask support for the straightforward amendment and the underlying bill and i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman seek time in opposition? mr. levin: i'm going to speak briefly and then i use that time, i seize that time. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the amendment? mr. levin: yes, yes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. levin: i'm just going to speak for a short time and then yield. i respect the chairman of the

committee. we've been friends a long time. it's really sad this amendment is here. there can't be money used under the bill for salaries. there's no lack of clarity here . essentially this is an effort to give some kind of fig leaf or whatever it is for a terrible, terrible bill. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, reserves. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: i'm going to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, reserves. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from maryland. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for two minutes. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i've already spoken about this

amendment. i think this amendment is as sad as the bill. we continue to play games because we think in a way we'll compel people to vote for something they don't want to vote for, and in my view are not going to vote for. i think it's sad. i think we continue to demagogue this institution and its members. that's sad. we leaders should not do that. this is a serious bill. i want to tell the gentleman from michigan, the chairman of the ways and means committee, i know what the debt is. i know that debt has been incurred because we bought a lot of things we didn't pay for, including over $1 trillion of afghanistan and iraq. including a prescription drug bill that projects over $2 trillion. including tax cuts that were $2.3 trillion that not a penny were paid for. i understand. i think it's serious. the sad thing is that this is

not a serious response. this is an irresponsible response. this is a response that as i said earlier says it will pay some people first but we won't pay all our debts. the richest country on the face of the earth, the most credit worthiness nation, we won't pay our debts. there is a simple way to stop this. stop demagoguing this issue. democrats demagogued it when we had republican presidents. we know that we've incurred debts and we'll pay them. that's simple. we're either going to pay our debts or we're not. now, i'm going to tell my friend, the gentleman from michigan, i know about the debt. the gentleman refers to $5 trillion. i'm sure the gentleman knows these statistics. under ronald reagan, the debt was increased 189%. under george bush, 55%, the first george bush, 55%. under this president so far, little over 40%.

every republican president under whom i've served -- one additional minute. every republican president with whom i've served, madam speaker, every republican president has increased the debt as a percentage of g.d.p. higher than either bill clinton or barack obama. bill clinton was the lowest, 37%. this president is a little over 40% of g.d.p. just -- like saying the minimum wage now is $7.25, which is so much higher than it was in 1970, which is not the case. now as a dollar nominal figure it's higher and the gentleman knows that very well. he's my friend and i have great respect for him, but this bill is unfortunate. is amendment is -- i won't characterize it as harshly as i feel about it. we have to stop playing games. we have to be serious. we need to come together and adopt a big plan that's balanced, that can pass and will put this country on a

fiscally sustainable path and in the process we ought to pay our bills because we incurred them. we incurred them honestly for objectives this house, this senate and the president of the united states signed for. one more minute. you don't have it. well, i can't ask him to yield another minute that he doesn't have so i'll yield back the balance of the time we don't have. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself the balance of the time. i also have great respect for -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, has 1 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from maryland's time had expired. mr. camp: i'll reserve. mr. levin: i wanted to be sure that was clear. sorry, mr. camp. all right, we have a minute and a half and i'm going to yield that minute and a half to the vice chair of our caucus, mr.

crowley, a member of our committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. crowley: i have reservations of the constitutionality of this amendment, but what i will say is i would gladly give my pay if it meant that these guys don't get paid. i will -- i will give my salaries to the defenders of this country, the men and women on the front line if their pay was in question. if all the money of the congress could do that i would do that. i say we should definitely pay these guys before we pay these guys. and that's what your bill does. the overlining bill will pay these guys before these guys. this amendment is a farce. it's a diverted attention from

the fact you want to pay these guys before you pay these guys. at the end of the day, that's what the overriding bill is about, putting china first, paying china first, putting our troops last, putting the american people last. it's about putting them first and us last. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, now has 15 seconds remaining. mr. levin: i use it by saying a default is a default is a default. this bill is a serious mistake as is the amendment. people can do what they want on the amendment. vote no on the basic bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has now expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: well, thank you,

madam speaker. i yield myself the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. camp: i just wanted to say, i also have great respect for the gentleman from maryland who spoke a couple speakers ago who is the distinguished minority whip. we've worked closely together on other issues as well. i will say this legislation is very similar to legislation that was passed in a bipartisan way in 1996 and signed by then -president bill clinton. this is not something brand new as an approach when dealing and struggling with debt and our debt issues. i think it's also important to remember as we go through this debate that now our debt is larger than our entire economy and that the debt that has been incurred under this administration is larger than the debt of the previous four presidents. so we have a path that is unsustainable that has gotten

worse and this has gone on for far too long. so i think it's important, though, we make these clarifying points in this amendment that clearly we've heard a lot of demgolingry about who gets -- demagoguery about who gets paid first. the americans and the u.s. military retirees will be paid first under this bill. their retirement funds, their pensions, their savings, that's very important. this is about making sure that the debt of the united states, that the united states has incurred -- not the ongoing payments but the debt of the united states -- is paid. that takes default off the table. that allows us then to move forward to get the larger bipartisan solutions on this growing and difficult problem with our debt that we need to address. the amendment makes it clear that members of congress' salaries won't be paid, that any debt issued will not pay that. it also makes clear that the secretary of the treasury must report weekly on the amount of

debt. we need transparency. we often don't get the latest information. we need that, both house and senate, so these are actually -- this is a straightforward amendment. it's clarifying. i urge support of the amendment. i urge support of the underlying bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan yields back. pursuant to the rule, the previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended. and on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. levin: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause

20, this 15-minute vote on adoption of the amendment will be followed by five-minute votes on a motion to recommit, if ordered, passage of h.r. 807, if ordered, and approval of the journal. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 340 and

the nays are 84. he amendment is adopted. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to require that the government prioritize all obligations on the debt held by the public in the event hat the debt limit is reached. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> madam speaker, the house is ot in order. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. he house will be in order.

>> madam speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? >> in its current form i am. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the house will be in order. please take your conversations off the floor. he house will be in order. >> madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. ma fay of new york moves to recommit the bill to the committee on ways and

means with instruction to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendment. add at the end the following new section, section 3, prohibition on default that pays china first instead of protecting america's seenor, veterans, and those harmed by natural disasters. this action will not take effect if it would result in the united states goth defaulting on its legal obligations for the first time in its history as evidenced by the sec retear of the treasury taking any of the following actions, making payments to foreign bondholders, including those in china, iran and ea cayman islands, before making pames to the deposit insurance fund and the national credit union share insurance fund which ensures savings for americans. two, failing to make a payment of a tet obligation to the social security and medicare trust fund or redeem a debt

obligation held by those trust funds. three, failing to redeem a debt obligation held by a trust fund providing veterans benefits, including the veterans special life insurance fund, the veterans reopened insurance fund, the armed forces retirmente home fund and the court of veteran appeals retirement fund. four, failing to redeem a debt obligation held by an intra-goethal fund for the purpose of assisting americans during a national disaster, including reserves, the national flood insurance program, and other disaster relief funds appropriated to the president. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. ma fee: i reserve -- >> i reserve a-pound of order against the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the point of order is reserved. pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from new york is recognized for five minutes in support of his motion.

mr. ma fay: thank you -- mr. maffei: i offer this amendment which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. >> the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york deserves to be heard. the house will be in orer. mr. maffei: this amendment will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. if adopted, the bill will proceed to final passage as amended. the american people want us to work together, republicans an democrats, to reduce the debt, pay our bills and avoid an economic catastrophe which would result from the fault. but how can democrats work with the republican leders of this house when their plan for america is to default? madam speaker, republicans today proved this by bringing forth this legislation which presumes it will happen and maps out not if, but what

happens when the united states defaults. their plan ensures that foreign creditors such as china, japan, and opec countries, iran, and saudi arabia would continue to get paid while we hold payments to groups of american who was earned those benefits. this bill prioritizes chinese lenders ahead of american seniors an veterans and college students. that's why it's called the pay china fers act. the house republican bill would stop paying for $1.4 million active duty proops and 100,000 active national guard and reserves. it would eliminate education benefits and home purr chatsing assistance for 1.3 million veterans, put small businesses that sell goods and services to the government on the hook for major losses and stop payments to doctors and hops who take care of the 50 million medicare patients around the country. madam speaker, the house is not

in order. >> the gentleman will suspend. -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the chair asks that you take your conversations off the loor of the house. the chair asks that you take your conversations off the loor of the house. debate will continue to be suspendle -- suspended until people take their conversations ff the floor of the house.

the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. maffei: the republican plan we debate here today ignores the needs and priorities of the american people and does so, madam speaker, that the republican leadership can sidestep the political problem that after being fully complicit in running up our nation's credit card debt, their side doesn't want to pay the bill. it strains the bounds of cynicism to think that any elected leaders would prioritize a policy of political convenience over the well being of those injured from fighting for america's freedom. but that is what's happening today. we need to come together as a nation to fix our debt and we need to do it in the right way, not on the backs of our middle class families and senior, certainly not by deing on the debt we owe our veterans.

instead of finding ways to pay china first, we should be using this to imto find a way to balance our budget and avoid defaulting on any of our obligations. we should be working together to come up with a plan that addresses the very serious fiscal challenges facing this country and these are not easy choices. but they are why our constituents sent us here. democrats and republicans. to answer the challenges of our time as our fore bears did in -- as our forebears did in theirs. the brinksmanship congress has put us in creates uncertainty in the economy, it stifles job creeeags. this plan will plunge our recovering economy back into recession, raise unemployment, might even freeze credit worldwide. it's a reckless plan to default for the first time in our nation's history, and economists agree it will be devastating. what this side is proposing is nothing but a plan to fail. madam speaker, i didn't come here to plan to file.

-- to plan to fail. i came here to focus on jobs and growth and a stronger middle class and promote commonsense budgets that is fair and expands our economy and reduces the deficit. instead of prioritizing china and foreign sovereign funds, we should be protecting our troops who are in harm's way, our veterans and seniors who rely on social security, american small businesses and college students with pell grants. hat's what this bill does, it's a simple choice. plan to default on our debts or work together to avert catastrophe. it's a simple choice. which one will my republican colleagues choose? madam speaker, above your chair are the words, in god we trust. through good times and thatted -- and bad, that trust has been rewarded this american people,

our seniors who depend on medicare, our students who worked hard to earn a pell grant to pay for college, our veterans who fact sice -- who sacrificed for our freedom, they have put their trust in us for 237 year, nation has paid its debts, not just some of them, like the ones to foreign creditors. our forebears have always kept faith with the american people. they didn't pick and choose, they did their duty and so must e. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? mr. camp: i withdraw my-pound ofed offer and seek time in opposition. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. camp: this body spent the last hour listening to the other side say how we can't

default but the irony of this motion to recommit is it mandates default. the easterny of this motion is it mandates default that would send our economy into a tailspin and ensure nobody gets paid. vote no on the motion to ecommit. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the motion is not agreed to. >> madam speaker, on that i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes y electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by

the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 200. the nays are 227. the motion is not adopted. the question is on the passage of the bill. those in favor say aye.

those opposed will say no. the ayes have it. mr. crowley: i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 221. the nays are 207. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the question is on agreeing to

the speaker's approval of the journal. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 264, the nays are 140, one voting present. the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? mr. hoyer: i ask unanimous consent to speak out ofed offer for one minute for the purposes of inquiring of the gentleman from texas, mr. brady, the schedule for the week to come.

mr. brady, as i understand it, is the designee of the majority leader and i welcome and appreciate his participation. mr. brady: i thank the gentleman for yielding. on monday, the house will meet at 2:00 p.m. in pro forma session. on tuesday, the house will meet at noon for morning hour and 2:00 for legislative business. votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. on wednesday and thursday, the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business, on friday, the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. -- mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i cannot hear the gentleman, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the house is not in order. mr. hoyer: thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman may proceed. mr. brady: on friday, the house will meet at 9:00 a.m., the last votes of the week are expected no later than 3:00

p.m. the house will consider suspensions on tuesday and wednesday a complete list of which will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. in addition, mr. speaker, i expect the house to consider h.r. 45, a bill sponsored by representative michele bachmann, to fully repeal obamacare. we will also consider h.r. 1062, the s.e.c. regulatory accountability act, authored by representative scott garrett this bill instructs the s.e.c. to conduct sos-benefit analysis on any rule, to ensure the benefits outweigh the cost. i yield become to the gentleman. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for that information. i want to thank him, i know the majority leader couldn't be here and he's filling in and i appreciate the fact that he's doing. that brady, i notice there is not on the notice for the schedule for next week any

reference about a motion to go to conference on the budget. as you know, the senate has now passed a budget, which it had not done for some years. your side in particular, but all of us wanted the senate to pass a budget, they passed a budget, we passed a budget, we would hope on this side of the aisle that we would now go to conference. i'm wondering whether the gentleman can, in light of the fact that that is regular order, two sides pass and now try to compromise the differences that exist between the two houses, can the gentleman tell me whether or not there is a man to go to conference? and if so, what that schedule might be? i yield to my friend. mr. brady: as you know, is in discussions about the budget. i think it's encouraging that for the first time in four years this is occur, the senate has finally passed a budget. but we know both sides are --

take a considerably different view toward our financial budget future. these talks are aimed at sort of narrowing those differences. we certainly don't want to short circuit those discussions because we're all in a hurry. mr. hoyer: i appreciate the fact that you're encouraged. frankly, our side has not heard an encouraging word, as in fact we continue to hear discouraging words, as the song says. but i'm hopeful we can bring the gap which exists which is about $100 billion, as the gentleman know thesms senate marked 1.-- $1.058 trillion which was consistent with the budget control act that we agreed upon, we voted on, pass ed, the president signed the budget control act, including that figure for the fiscal year 2014 budget. the ryan budget, as you know, reflects the 966 -- the $966

billion 302 allocation, that is general discretionary spending levels. i'm wondering when you saw-year -- when you say you're encouraged, do you know whether there's been any progress toward trying to bridge that gap? obviously as a former appropriator, many times, 50-50, come to the middle, which would be about $1 trillion or a little more than that, i'm wondering whether or not the gentleman knows whether any progress has been made on that? i yield to my friend. mr. brady: as you know, there are significant differences. the senate budget includes over $1 trillion in new tax hikes on small businesses and families which would be very damaging to the economy. the senate democrat bill adds, i think, about $8 trillion to the deficit and doesn't take what we think are critical steps to saving social security and medicare over the long haul. that's why these discussions, i

think, are so critical, again, i'm encouraged that both sides are discussing them, trying to find a way to narrow them and we ought to give them time to be able to continue those discussions. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. let me observe this on our side, we think it would be useful if the american public had the opportunity to in effect see the discussions in a conference. i've been here long enough to remember when we had conferences. on the appropriations committee. we had those conferences, they were open to the public, they were reported on, we had discussions about the differences that existed, as one would expect, from people elected from different parts of the country, different views. but we think it would be very help ffl those discussions were held, because the differences are pretty profound and pretty significant, that it would help the public to have a better understanding of the process, in addition, as the gentleman knows, of course, there was

some discussion about the president's coming down late with his budget, we should have been through the budget process by now, so that the appropriations committee could foresee with its allocations to its 12 subcommittees. in that context, i would ask the gentleman, does the gentleman have any idea when the appropriations bills might be marked up and when they've been brought to the floor? as you know, under regular order, for the most part, we've brought appropriations bills to the floor, starting in mid may or the last week in may, that we could get through that process in june and july and send those bills to the senate so we might have conferences and complete our work by october 1. i yield to my friend. mr.berry di: thank you for yielding. i agree about the importance of moving our appropriations bill. the majority leading announced we will begin the process of funding our government in june, through an open appropriations and through those

appropriations seasons will work with the appropriations committee to determine which bill will come to the floor in june as we have continued to do for the last number of years. mr. hoyer: i appreciate that. i look forward to it. enge the consideration of appropriate bills on the floor and for the most part you followed the open rules, which i -- we did as well in 2007 until we just couldn't get the bills done in a timely fashion. hopefully we can do that because i think that, again, gives the public the opportunity to see the priorities of not only each member but those sides moving forward. i think that's appropriate in a democracy. i appreciate the fact that the majority leader intends to bring those bills to the floor starting in june and i'm not sure whether we fin herb all 12 in june but perhaps fin herb those in july. we did not bring, as we gentleman knows, the labor health bill to the full committee, in the last sickle,

much less to the floor that bill will be tough. chairman rodgers, i know the gentleman is on a committee that he believes is more important and i may differ in that perception, he's a member of the ways and means committee, i was a former member of the appropriations committee, but notwithstanding that, mr. rodgers made the observation, in terms of the dollars allocated in the ryan budget for discretionary spend, both on the defense side and nondefense side, he said this, quote, i suspect there will be some who will be shocked, i don't think people yet understand how severe the numbers will be. those numbers referring to the $966 billion discretionary spending which will require deep cuts in almost every program on a national defense side and on the discretionary side. so that the sooner we get to that, because i think it's going to be a difficult process, the better, and i appreciate your information with reference to the majority leader's intent to bring that

to the floor. now i also did not see on the schedule, mr. brady, anything that deals with the sequester. i do see the affordable care act repeal on the floor next week, which has been on this floor some 33, 34, 35 times before, to repeal it. we're having another repeal vote coming up. i think honestly, you believe, as i believe, that that bill is not going to go anywhere other than perhaps through the house of representatives but beyond that, it won't go anywhere. however, the sequester continues to be an ongoing challenge to our country, to our government, and to our eople, we dealt with it in a sort of surgical fashion, dealing with the f.a.a. we have not dealt with any of the other concerns as the gentleman knows, i have concerns about the fact the

sequester may result in 0,000 children not being on head start, only three or four years of age once, social security administration may have to furlough people which will slow down payments of social security. four million fewer meals on wheels for seniors, 600,000 people dropped off the women, enfants and children program. 00,000less h.u.d. vouchers for people who are homeless or struggling to keep a home. unemployment insurance has been cut 11% for two million out of work americans. who now have no safety net for them. the f.d.a. will have 2,100 fewer food safety inspectors, down 18%, obviously putting at risk our food safety. and we'll furlough an equivalent to 1,000 fewer federal agents, we know the

boston marathon bombings, how critical f.b.i. was, border security, one third of combat air units have been grounded. i mention all those simply to say that in the context of those consequences of the sequester, does the gentleman have any, it's not on next week, we have a week after that we'll be in session, does the gentleman have any information with tronchese whether or not e will deal with trying to ameliorate these adverse consequences of sequester before we leave here for the memorial day break? and i yield to my friend. >> thank you for yielding. as you may remember, the president proposed the sequester originally in discussions about the budget and has threatened to veto any legislative efforts to turn off that sequester. perhaps that's why republicans, democrats, and the president reached legislation that locks

in lower spending levels for the remainder of the year and congress has provided the administration the flexibility to cut funding from the nonpriority provisions and areas of the budget so we can prioritize those important areas that you discussed. as we all remember, what sequester did was take, in effect, a 500-pound government and insisted that it lose 10 pounds. that's what the sequester does. a minor amount but important because this nation is running such dangerously high deficits. so clearly there's bipartisan agreement on the spending levels through the budget for the rest of the year, i think that's, the regular appropriations process, that chairman rodgers is bringing forward where we have a chance, republicans an democrats, to amend it and get our ideas to the floor, i think that adds extra importance to that process. .

mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments. i do want to observe that the president of the united states has offered a budget which eliminates the sequester and gets to budget deficit reduction and fiscal sustainability in an alternative way which we think is much more positive. i would also remind the gentleman that chris van hollen ,le ranking member of the budget committee, offered an alternative which gets rid of the sequester which all sides agree is an irrational process in that it cuts highest priority and lowest priority the same. the sequester, as the gentleman knows, was put in a bill to force action with the specific belief and premise that the sequester was so bad, so irrational, he so lacking in common sense, so negative in its impact that it would never be adopted. sadly it was adopted. i want to say also the gentleman

-- a lot of his colleagues like to mention this, the president's suggestion. with all due respect it's the jack lew brought it up, mr. reid, everybody's read about that. he brought it up, after, however, and the gentleman probably recalls this, after, days after sequester as a policy was included in the cut, cap, and balance bill for which 229 republicans voted for as a policy. i want to tell the gentleman just for his future information, on our side we oppose the sequester. we want to see the sequester change. mr. van hollen not only offered a budget but he offered four amendments. each time we consider the c.r., and other legislation, four times he offered an amendment to substitute the same savings so we could get those bruckses to

which the gentleman spoke, but would not do so in the irrational, across-the-board fashion that sequester requires. so that i want to make it clear if there was any confusion on your side of the aisle, we are not for the sequester. i voted for the c.r. to keep the government opened, but i voted against the c.r. when it let this house, which had sequester, in there. i frankly thought shutting down government was even worse than sequester, but i think the sequester is having a harmful effect not only on government but a harmful effect on our economy. i think it's a drip, drip, drip. it wasn't shut the door, it wasn't black and white, it wasn't overnight, but it is a drip, drip, drip that is harming our economy. i understand what the gentleman's told us, but i would hope that we would seriously consider trying to see if we could reach agreement either outside the context of the budget conference or inside the

context of the budget conference that would give us an alternative which would be more rational, more positive, and more helpful to our economy. the next subject, the debt ceiling, we just passed a bill on the pryorization. -- priretization. we opposed that on our side. we think that is not a good polcy. obviously there is a disagreement on that. can the gentleman tell me, may 19 is the date the debt ceiling extension expires. can the gentleman tell me whether there is any proposal to act in the near future other than debt prioritization which will have no chance in the senate and is roundly opposed by many republican economists, as the gentleman knows, and by the bush former economic advisor to the bush administration said it would not work, should not work. can the gentleman tell me whether there is any alternative

plan before we leave here memorial daybreak to give confidence to the economy and to creditors and to the american people that we will deal responsibly with the debt limit extension? i yield to my friend. mr. brady: thank you for yielding. i was disappointed in today's action since i think it is dangerous to flirt with default. america ought to pay its debt. we assure investors here at home, local retirement funds who bought u.s. treasury, social security trust fund itself it gets paid back interest, as well as other investors that america will not default. i was disappointed this was made a partisan issue. in fact i think flirting with it and getting to the brain has really been damaging to our economy, and i think choosing for default was a mistake by your colleagues. i'm hopeful in the senate that

they will take it up and there will be a more bipartisan effort to assure that we are going to actually pay our bills and focus on the real problem which is dangerously high deficits. the fact that we are not acting now to save social security, medicare, such critical programs. in the house we have begun to discuss to identify what those priorities are to move us back toward a balanced budget without raising taxes on local families and businesses. we have begun the process of identifying good, positive ideas that would restore confidence in america's financial future. and we think it is important let's move along on a very deliberate, timely manner so that we don't end up in an 11th hour issue, and i think this is a reasonable, appropriate way to deal with not just a huge, dramatically larger debt

borrowing amount than america has ever seen, so many trillions piled up in the last few years, and more piling up for the future, we don't think the answer is taking more of what people earn. it is congress coming together, republicans and democrats, and finding a way to get our financial house in order, move it back towards a balanced budget, and act to save social security and medicare. mr. hoyer: the last four years of the clinton administration. now there was republican controlled congress, but the next four years there was republican controlled congress, republican controlled senate, and a republican president. and we went deeply into debt. we escalated the debt during the bush administration by 87%. more than this president has escalated the deficit, 87% of g.d.p. on nominal terms as mr. camp observed before, the dollars are

higher, that's true. spending more money. making more money as a country. g.d.p. is up. during the reagan administration we increased a debt as a percentage of the national g.d.p. by 186%. 55%, george w. bush. 37% under mr. clinton. some 40-plus percent under this president today. so i think the gentleman and i agree we need to get a handle on the debt and deficit. ut we disagree on how this happened. it happened because we didn't pay our bills. and we jettisoned pay-go in 2003. as a practical matter jettisoned it in 2001. not paying for things is what creates debt. not buying. if i buy things and i pay for them, i don't have a debt. if i buy things and don't pay

for them, i have a debt. so it's not a question of what i buy, although clearly we need to restrain buying. we need to constrain spending. and as i have said, all across the board, the gentleman's heard me, including entitlements, including discretionary defense, and nondefense spending, but what we ought to do is manage our finances in a way that does not give pause to the american people or to the economy. i want to just read for you a burn's economic council director who disagrees with your proposition that this prioritization will in any way stabilize -- i don't think the gentleman disagrees with me that bill is not going to pass in the senate, here's what he said. payment, prioritization, doesn't

stop payment. it just delays it. then the agreed -- aggrieved party sues the government, probably wins, and turns into a bloody mess. tony, who was the spokesman on economic policy in the bush administration, said this, prioritization isn't possible. is the government really going to be in the position of withholding benefits, salaries, rent, contract payments, etc., in order to pay off treasury bondholders? we refer of course to the pay china first bill. and china will be paid. we borrowed money from them. we ought to pay them. here's what he concludes of the prioritization bill. that would be a political catastrophe. and i suggest an economic catastrophe as well to say to our armed services personnel, we are not going to pay you but we are going to pay china for our debts. the fact of the matter is the united states is the most creditworthy nation on earth.

we ought to pay all of our debts, not on priority status. if we owe you as the united states of america, we are going to pay you. that's our proposition. not prioritize bondholders, but paying small contractors doing business with us, offer us services and products and we don't pay them until after we pay our bondholders. we ought to pay everybody. that's what america is about. so i would hope that we could revisit this because your debt prioritization is not going to pass. you know it's not going to pass. and we need to get to a responsible way of dealing with the debt limit extension, both parties, i will tell my friend, have demagogued on this issue. we demagogued on it when we had a republican president. you demagogued it, not you personally, no aspersion, but both sides have when the president was of the other party. it's a shame. not good for our country.

ronald reagan says congress continues to run us up. we ran us up so close last time that for the first time in history the united states of america was downgraded by one of our rating institutions. i hope the gentleman who serves on the ways and means committee, and i and others could work together so this doesn't happen again. on that we make sure that the american people and that all of our creditors and people around the world know that the united states of america can and will handle its finances in a responsible fashion. the gentleman want to say anything further? i'll yield back. if not i yield my time. i yield back my time. mr. brady: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. brady: i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourns to meet at 2:00 p.m. on monday next. that the order of the house of january 3, 2013, regarding morning hour debate not apply on that day. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

for what purpose does the entleman from new jersey rise? without objection, the gentleman s recognized for one minute. mr. lance: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to honor dr. shirley tillman for her distinguished service as the is the 9 president of princeton university. dr. tillman will step down this spring following 12 years of exceptional leadership. as the first woman to serve as novet princeton, she -- as president of princeton, she is a role model for many young women. she set in order a number of flishtives, presenceton increased its financial aid offering significantly, making princeton's program one of the most generous in the country.

dr. tillman has also worked diligently to bolster the university's academic offerings, overseeing the creation of the lewis center for the arts this center for african-american study the center for energy and the environment and the princeton knew row science institute. -- neurorow science institute. as a proud -- neuroscience institute. i proud princeton alum, extend my thanks. princeton's service has now expanded to include the service of all nation. i congratulate dr. shirley tillman and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> to address the house for onemen. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in recognition of nurses

weeks and to thank the millions of nurses on the frontline of our health care system. ms. lee: though a doctor is considered the primary health care provider, nurses are clinicians who provide high quality, cost-effective care in every community through the our country. around the world, nurs are often the first and only link to care for millions living in developing cupry and true warriors against diseases like malaria, h.i.v., aids and polio. we are close -- thanks to nurses we are close to a polio-free world and could not have come so far without the leadership of the united states, the gates foundation and the programs leek rotary international. as we thank and salute nurses around the world we must also recognize the severe shortages of health workers and recommit ourselves to supporting programs and policies that have the greatest impact and farthest reach. once again, we must end polio

now. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one inute. >> thank you, mr. speaker, i rise today to give thanks to the first person who came to work for me when i came to congress five years ago, legislative director megan bell. she's leaving our office, going on to bigger and better things but she's been a tireless public servant for the people of southeast louisiana and provided great leadership to our nation. mr. scalise: she's been a huge help to me on so many issue, when the deepwater horizon disaster happened three years ago, she was right there helping not only to get people back to work but also to help draft and lead through the legislative process the restore act which provided incredible support to the people become home.

she also provided great help to constituents on a friday afternoon when we got a call from a father whose son needed lifesaving treatment, she worked through the whole weekend to get f.d.a. approval for a life-saving clinical trial. a great public servant, somebody i think we can all aspire and look up to. we will miss her here at the capitol and i will miss her in our office but she'll be going on to bigger and better things, i wish her the best and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and rhett re-my rashes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one inute. mr. moran: the safe climate caucus is composed of people who agreed to speak every day on the house floor about the urgent need of climate change. on tuesday, we reached record levels of carbon in the atmosphere.

since 1956, a u.s. observatory has been recording tai ta on the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and over the last few decades, carbon dioxide levels have been higher than at any point in the last 800,000 years. so there's more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere today than since the dawn of civilization. this month, the amount of carbon is close to reaching 400 parts per million a new record. as a result, extreme weather events are going to be ever more frequent and more damaging. we must act before it's too late. our window to address the threat of climate change is closing. it's time to stop the denials, and start acting proactively. thaufpk, mr. speaker. -- thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore:

without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: two years ago, i worked with the congressional armed service committee to include the step act as part of the 2012 national defense authorization act. the law expands telemedicine at department of defense by allowing credentialed care professionals to perform telehealth consultations across state lines, great news for service members, especially those facing mental illness. instead of waiting weeks for consultation, these men and women can access kear without delay while avoiding the stigma that's oftentimes associated with seeking treatment. last year the department of defense issued a waiver to expand telemedicine beginning implementation. in 2012, the army was able to perform nearly 36,000 teleconsultations. despite progress, tricare providers weren't included in theware limiting thousands of professionals from providing services. second, it doesn't allow service members to use

telemedicines from their homes. what better way to avoid stigma and seeking treatment than in the privacy of our -- of one ose home. to fully implement step act, this must be fully implemented. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one inute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize five service members that died last saturday in afghanistan. first lieutenant brandon loon drew, staff sergeant frances phillips, specialist kevin cardoza, specialist brandon prescott and specialist thomas merck were killed by an i.e.d. while on patrol in kandahar province. mr. o'roark: all five had been

award a bronze star and purple heart. all four for stationed in the district i represent. fort bliss has lost 83 soldiers in iraq and afghan strap. it's deeply impacted the family, friends and fellow soldiers of the fallen as well as the fort bliss and el paso communities. it reminds us of the ongoingle to of the war, now going on its 12th year and out of sight for many americans. it reminds us of our solemn responsibility to service members not only to be cautious when sending them in harm's way, but also knowing when it is time to bring them home. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. smith: the center for immigration studies has analyzed the senate immigration

bill and found it threatens our national security. for example, it allows examiners to grant asylum on the spot to arriving claimants without giving them background checks. it prohibits the prosecution of claims for any criminal past whether visa fraud violation, if they have a pending claim for asylum, whether or not it is frivolous. it fails to create an entry-exit tracking system at nd ports, it waives existing grounds for barring amnesty so it appears even the 9/11 terrorists could qualify for legalization under the senate immigration bill. incredibly it allows the re-entry and legalization of those from terrorist sponsoring countryings who have been deported. how bad does it have to get before there's a popular

uprising to oppose this bill? the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from the district of columbia seek recognition? ms. norton: to address the house for one minnesota and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. norton: yesterday, low income workers who work in federal building held an impressive rally and press conference at union station. they serve the public and federal government under contracts in federal buildings nationwide like the ronald reagan building, often without benefits or a living wage. despite their hard work, their employers and federal contractors offload the cost of benefits such as health care onto the taxpayer. it's a zero sum game. the working poor do not earn enough to live on and taxpayers often pick up the tab with food stamps and health care that

mployers pay a decent wage themselves shoulder. this is why we need administrative action to make sure retail and commercial vendors who enjoy the prestige of contracts with the federal government at sites like the smithsonian offer decent pay with benefits putting everybody ahead, yes, the workers, but especially the taxpayers and the economy alike. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. poe: the benghazi whistleblowers have spoken publicly. the administration failed before, during, and after the terrorist attack in benghazi. head of tip lomatic security libya, eric nordstrom testified

that his calls for more curt ask before the attack were dismissed by a negligent state department. during the attack counterterrorism official mark thompson said the rescue team was told to stand down instead of try to save americans under attack. deputy chief of missions in libya, greg hicks, said in chilling testimony that when ambassador stevens frabtcally called him, they both knew this was a terrorist attack. the information was reported to washington. but back on the ranch, the administration ignored the obvious terror attack and blamed the situation on a video. what a yarn. the libyan president even told our goth this was a terrorist attack and he was ignored. the result, four americans murdered, an administration missing in action that didn't attempt to rescue americans a bungling state department that misled us, and a secretary of state testifying, what difference does it make? the difference it makes, mr. speaker, is four americans were left behind. shameful. and that's just the way it is.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one inute. mr. polis: -- >> thank you, mr. speaker. it is teacher appreciation week, and i rise to appreciate teachers, including my wife and my sister who teaches gifted and talented students and english as a second language. but mostly i rise to really appreciate our teachers. i have three daughters they have all received great educations and it's thanks to the teachers who spend so much time, who care about our kids and the investment we're making in our children. through our teachers tissue and the investment we're making in our children through our teachers is the best investment we can make. mr. perlmutter: we have to continue to build our education system and make et the best in the world and keep it that way. mr. speaker, i just want to thank all the teachers out

there for the hard work that they do every day on behalf of our country but especially our kids. thank you, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. johnson: today i rise in support of consumer protection and privacy on mobile dwiteses. -- devices. every day millions of americans use mobile applications to help us get through the day but many consumers don't know that their data is being collected this privacy breach is just not ones and zeros, it's personal information, including our location at any given moment, our photos, messages, and many of the things meant only for our friends and loved ones. yet we lack basic rights to

control how and how much of our tai ta is collected on our phones, ipads, and tablets. data has become the oil of the 21st semplingry and like any other resource, there must be commonsense rules of the road for this emerging challenge. the damage -- today i'm introducing the apps act a commonsense approach to this urgent challenge. the apps act will protect consumers without disrupting functionality or innovation. privacy is an issue that should unite us, not drive us apart. i ask that my colleagues come together and support this bill, creating transparency and trust in the mobile marketplace and i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker. the education system in our country needs help. instead of helping education through additional funding, the

sequester which i voted against, is a bad idea. cuts education services to children in our country most at risk. $740 million will be cut from title 1 education programs that provide financial assistance to improve academic achievement of disadvantaged students. tennessee received $14.5 million less and memphis, almost every single school relies on those funds. head start would be stripped of $406 million. these programs are relied upon by low-income families, families who do more assistance to assure their children have a safe place to learn while their parents work to pay their bills. nationwide nearly 1.2 million students are affected. tennessee will lose at least $7 million. and memphis it means 31,000 children will lose access to affordable early education. as a result of this reduction in federal funding, and the needs to prioritize -- reprioritize our allocation of title 1 funding, memphis city schools will be forced to eliminate

approximately 80 of its pre-k classrooms for the next year. 82 classrooms were being closed -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. cohen: the see questionser needs to go. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following purge request. -- the following personal request. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. flores of texas for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted. under the speaker's announced the of january 3, 2013, gentleman from iowa, mr. king, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker. it's my privilege to be recognized to address here on the floor of the united states house of representatives. i know that there's issue after issue that comes before this congress. some calculate those issues in

the thousands. but i'm also aware that across america we talk about the things that we see in the news, the things that are in the news, or the large topics that are emerging here in congress. we heard the gentleman from texas speak about the benghazi incident and how that is unfolding here. and the other gentleman talked about the immigration issue which is unfolding within the senate and the judiciary committee as recently as today. come to the floor, mr. speaker, to raise the issue of immigration and seek to i think more broadly inform yourself and those listening in members of congress as well, and it strikes me that we have been through some intense debate here in this congress on the immigration issue and primarily that debate that took place and starting in of throughout the duration 2006 and into geven, when we saw 10 of thousands of people come and -- come to the capitol

grounds and fill up the west lawn and call for amnesty. i recall in those days it was president george w. bush that was promoting this polcy. i remember a discussion with his -- policy. i remember a discussion with his senior political advisor at the time and he said to me, well, if we didn't give them amnesty, would it be ok with you? well, first let's define amnesty. and he said, well, it wouldn't be amnesty, for example, if we required people to pay a fine. or if we require them to learn english or if we require them to get a job, pay their back taxes. and that was the language that emerged here in the middle part of the previous decade. it happens to also be reflective of the 1986 amnesty act which ronald reagan signed. two times that great man led me down an eight years of a presidency, ronald reagan

intended to follow through on the enforcement of the law and securing of our border. i was an employer at the time. i remember the new rules that emerged from the 19 6 amnesty act. president reagan was honest enough and direct enough with the american people that he called it amnesty. we understood that's what it was. we understood the purpose for it. and that was to get an agreement so that we could enforce the law and put away the immigration debate for all time by allowing the people that were illegally in the united states, a path to citizenship, a full residency status, and path to citizenship, and the trade off was that would be the last amnesty, the promise that there would never be another one was the 1986 amnesty act. there was something like 800,000 people originally that were to be the beneficiaries of this plan. it turned out to be not a

million, three million people. there was a substantial amount of documents, there was a larger universe of people than anticipated. does anybody think today, mr. speaker, that this universe of people is not larger than that anticipated by the senate version of the immigration -- comprehensive immigration reform bill? of course honest people, objective people, they are not going to write into the bill there is only going to be 11 million people that can be beneficiaries of this bill. any kind of an amendment like that would put a hard cap on would be a deal breaker in the united states senate because they know that number's larger. history shows that number is larger. data shows the number is larger. that's just the lowest number they could with a straight face talk about and it's in a calculated way to try to minimize the amount because it minimizes the opposition to this idea that has emerged. i understand why it's there for democrats, mr. speaker. i recall this debate and it's

likely the year was 2006, i saw it live. i saw it on c-span but it took place right out here on the west lawn when then senator teddy ken dirks went before throngs of people speaking through an interpreter -- kennedy, went through throngs of people speaking through an interpreter, english through an interpreter, some say report to be deported, i say report to become an american citizen. when i heard that, mr. speaker, i understood why he said that. that was his clairian call to say to all of them out there, we want to give you citizenship and the deal is, you need to come and vote. vote for those who advocate for handing citizenship over in exchange for the implied or implicit. we know what has happened with the way that people have been divided, divided from americanism into special interest groups by using the political science of victimology

, manufactured in the brain of antonio back in the earlier part of the 20th century, a contemporary of lenin who studied in moscow and went to italy and sat down and was jailed by mussolini and wrote his prison notebooks. i have read nearly every word he published, mr. speaker, and it was -- antonio was a brilliant man. if you can accept the flawed premise that he started with. nd that was to accept carl marx's theory they needed to defeat western civilization and empower the proly terrance. he was critical of marxist's theory he said he isolated himself and focused just on economics. he didn't believe that the communist movement could succeed against free enterprise and western civilization because the pick and roll tear -- pick and roll tear yacht, the common people, needed the bourgeois for

the jobs. he argued instead if we are going to defeat them we have to do the long march through the culture. we have to take on all of these principles that interconnect, that hold western civilization, western christian come as winston churchill described it. those values that hold us together completely under assault by strategized by antonio who was the president of the communist party in italy from 1919 to 1926, and he was brilliant in his perception. he he is the father of multiculturalism. he created -- didn't use the word i could find, but he's the father of it, and he created the idea that if you could get people to identify themselves as victims and be in victims groups, there will be more energy in a group with common agreement than there would be in a group of prolitariates who need add job and wanted a better

way of life. if you could get the focus of the grievance group intensify and bundle the groups up into a movement, throughout all of that you could break down western civilization and you could empower the socialist state, marxist state. that was his writings. his teachings. and some of the people in this congress actually do know about this man. i think i am eat only one who has actually attempted to read all his works. i see it emerge here in the immigration debate. and it's part of the effort to divide people. americans, the giant melting pot, the greatest success story of assimilation the world has ever conceived. why do people come here to the united states of america? because they are inspired by the image of the statue of liberty. within the statue of liberty are the basic pillars of american exceptionalism. in the minds of people -- minds of the people that see it. they are written in the bill of rights, most of them. can you imagine being in a foreign country, where you are

suppressed, don't have the rule of law, you don't have right to property or right to keep the earnings from the sweat of your brough -- brow, in a country like that where you can't trust the press, there is not an open press, can you imagine getting that message, radio free europe, for example, and realizing, the united states of america you can have, if you can come here, come here legally, you can have freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to peaceably assemble and he petition of government for redress of grievances? what a wonderful thing to be looking at from someplace in the world where they don't have those kind of rights. that's just part of the first amendment. then you go to the second, right to keep and bear arms. why? so we can defend ourselves from tyranny. that was one thing that guarantees the balance of the rights. looking on down through, the property rights in the fifth amendment, the protection against double jeopardy, you get

to face a jury of your pearce and then on top of that these rights that are not specified, the authority of the federal government that's not enumerated, devolve to the states and people respectively. which means we are an even freer country than we can imagine from reading the constitution because some states are freer than others. we compete with each other to offer that level of freedom, economic freedom, social freedom, freedom to be free from a 16.1 ounce limitation on the size of your coke, for example, you can move to another state if you don't like that rule, city, if you don't like that rule that flows out of new york. that's an example that this great laboratory of america inspired millions of people all over the world. so we didn't just get a random cross section of people that came from scotland or germany or italy or name your country around the world. not a random cross section, we got the people that were

inspired. these are the people that saw the statue of liberty, they had enough access for the real truth because we put the message out because maybe they were interactive with americans that travel. maybe they interacted with american troops that went to liberate some people. we have always left a positive message wherever we have gone as americans. an example of that, mr. speaker, was one that caught me by surprise, very pleasant surprise, several years ago i went to a hotel in downtown, washington, d.c., to listen to a speech by then president of the philippines, and in that speech as i listened here's how it unfolded, she said thank you, america. thank you for sending united states marine corps to our islands in 1898. mr. speaker, i know you miss be thinking, what about the army? she forgot about the army, but the army was there, too. she said thank you also for sending your priests and pastors to our islands to help restore and establish our faith.

thank you for sending 10,000 american teachers, if i remember right, she called them thomasites who taught the students in the philippines the english language, the free enterprise system, a sense of honesty, and a work ethic, the american way of life and being proud of being a worker and producer and contributing to the g.d.p. she said today there are 1.3 million filipinos that because they have these skills of language, work ethic, and understanding of free enterprise, they can travel anywhere in the world to get a job, and they send back a lot of that money back to the philippines. she told us what the percentage of their g.d.p. came from. foreign filipino workers that contribute to the g.d.p. of the philippines and to the wealth of the philippines because more than 100 years ago americans nt there, and we transferred american culture and civilization and it had a significant influence on the philippines and they are more

successful today. that was her speech to us. more than 100 years later to say thank you. here's an image of america there's an image of what america was and what america still is. that's an image that's under assault by this philosophy of ctimology created in the writings of this man. marx wrote his "communist manifesto," gromsky created a victimology and wrote about how to use that to undermine our culture and civilization and he way to break he down our values, breck down truth and that's only three of 25 on the list. they've been doing it systematically. i see it come out of this side of the aisle every single day in congress. most of them don't know they're doing it, they're just caught

up and swept up in the movement of their political party. i hear the president reduce, lowering american values by his comments that take place in the public and the press. think about the things he's chosen sides on. for example, when it was professor gates and officer crowley, mr. speaker, we know, first of all, no president would engage in an incident like that. but he did. and he drove a wedge down between the issues of race. when arizona passed their immigration law, sb-1070, the president had to do a profile of the type of person that he alleged might be impacted negatively by that bill when the bill itself specifically said that couldn't happen. down the lines of race and ethnicity again. , d then we've got tim tebow who will kneel and pray to god on the football field, meanwhile we have a professional athlete that

decides he's fwoning to announce his sexuality and he gets a personal call from the president of the united states to highlight the sexuality of a professional ballplayer. these are ways that the culture gets undermined, where it gets devoided and the people on this side take their followership from that kind of leadership and one notch at a time, one click at a time, american civilization, american culture, western civilization, western judeo christian dom are eroded -- judeo-christiandom are eroded and they're carrying out a plan that's been put in place and fought and advocated for about 90 years ago and they don't know they're doing it. they think somehow they're providing freedom. they always want change. they want to change everything that's in place. but there is no goal. if you would grant a wish list to the left and say if i had the power and the imagine exwand and i would say here's a magic wand, ewill give you

this. you've got all the rest to have 2013 to put together the list of all the things you want to do to fix society, fix america, all the things that possibly could be done from the united states congress from the white house if the judicial branch of government throughout our states down to the lowest municipal judge in the country, or legislative body, city council, for example, give them their entire wish list. you've got the roves the year to put that western list together and come the stroke of midnight, when the ball drops in times square, december 131 at maryland night, i'm going to stroke the magic wand and you can have everything your political heart wishes for. but the deal is now you've got to clam up forever and live underneath the rules you spent the rest of this year writing. mr. speaker we know how that would turn out. they would work day and night because they are hardworking people. they are smart people. they start with a flawed premise but they're smart beyond that. they would work day and night

to produce the longest, most complete, expansive list of all the things the left would want and it would be the destruction of western civilization in the end, come midnight, if i gave them, stroke the magic wand, then they would stay up the rest of the night trying to figure out how to argue that somehow they were cheated, that they really needed something else, they left something out of the list. they're never never going to live with the values they call for because there's no constant of truth for them they've undermine it. there is no constant of faith or values, there's no -- because it always has to be moving. it's got to be transformative to satisfy the people on the left. those hoff us who come from the other side of the aisle, we believe there are eternal truths. that, for example, a sin 2000 years ago is a sin today. we believe that there is such a thing as truth, such a thing as objective truth and such a thing as sound science. and we should adhere to those

things that are back and white and live by them and debase the things that are gray. that's the difference between the right and the left and i believe that if you would grant me that power that i've discussed, mr. speaker, to give to those on our side of the aisle, i could probably write you up a set of rules in the next 24 hours that i'd be willing to live with for the rest of my life and i think that society would gradually move itself back into an ordered form that would allow human nature and the best of human nature to manifest itself in our families, in our faith, in our communities, in our work, in our rule of law. but what i'm watching here is the undermining of the rule of law with the immigration bill this bill that is emerging now, that's being debated in the senate, apparently there's one that's still hidding here in the -- hidden here in the house somewhere by hidden committee, this is with the bill does, the fwang of eight's bill. it grants instantaneous amnesty to everyone who is here in america.

and it sends an invitation to everyone who has been deported in the past to apply to come back to america. and it makes an implicit promise that if you came into america after the deadline or if you can get into america, sneak into america any time in the future, you will be legalized in the next wave of amnesty. it's only a matter of time and we will never deport you as long as you don't commit a felony or if you can mysteriously figure out which of the three misdemeanors would be so offensive that the the gang of eight would want to send you back home again. that's the bill. so what to they do to get people to agree to embrace this huge amnesty bill that is breathtaking in its scope and beyond the imagination of even the people in the senate a year ago, it's what they wanted but wouldn't say it publicly, they never imagined they could talk about this broad and expansive an amnesty bill even a year

ago, so we have -- and their tradeoff is this -- we have to legalize people because they're saying that we have de facto amnesty. no, we have real amnesty, executive branch created amnesty in america today, the president had -- has refused to enforce immigration law he took an oath to keak care that the laws be faithfully executed. that's his constitutional responsibility. whether he agrees with the laws or not, it's his constitutional responsibility to take care that they are faithfully executed. when he was speaking to a high school here in washington, d.c. a couple of years ago, the date was march 28, i'm not certain of the year, and they asked him, why don't you, by executive order, pass the dream act that would grant legal status and an in-state tuition discount for those younger people that came into the united states and they're here illegally? and his answer was, well, i don't have the authority to do that.

constitutionally, that's -- congress has to pass a law like that. because you see, he explained to them as a former adjunct constitutional law professor at the university of chicago, i agreed with the explanation he gave which is congress passes the law, it's up to the president to carry out or enforce those laws and it's up to the courts to rule on what the laws mean. now that's a pretty compact synopsis but i don't disagree with that. i think the president deto scribed it right he said he did not have the power, his power was limited by the constitution , congress is in power to pass immigration laws. that's what congress has done from the beginning. and the pecktive branch job is to enforce it. shortly thereafter, that being a roughly or -- roughly a year or so later, the president reversed his decision and, i believe by his direction, the department of homeland security spit out a memorandum that

created four classes of people. these four classes of people were then summarily exempted from the enforce oment -- enforcement of immigration law and seven times in that memorandum they wrote the word, on an individual basis. on an individual basis. because they know that by -- i'll just say by consent and agreement, the executive branch can't prosecute every federal violation. that's why they have prosecutorial discretion. it's also a matter of case law out there, if you want to accept that term and i generally don't. but that directive, i grant the executive branch has to have prosecutorial discretion to determine how best to apply the enforcement and prosecution resources of the executive branch. they can't prosecute every single violation. but, prosecutorial discretion only is on an individual basis, it's not on classes of people.

but the president, janette napolitano and john morton, created four classes of people and waived the enforcement of the law against those four classes of people and to add ensult to injury, these four classes of people, they're not going to enforce the law against, the president created out of thin air a work permit so that they could work in the united states, presumably legally. it's an unconstitutional, lawless work permit he's created but they are getting those work permits now to work in the united states because the president has crossed the constitutional line, that line between executive and legislative branch, article 2 has gone to article 1 and claimed authority. now, when the founding fathers constructed this constitution and they set up these three branches of government, often we're taught they are three equal branch, i would argue that the judicial branch was designed to be the weakest of

the three. but that's -- that point is not so important here, mr. speaker, but it's this. that this congress passes the laws, the executive branch's job is to enforce the law the president decided he could manufacture laws out of thin air and refuse to enforce the laws on classes of people he created by memorandum. that as far as i know has not happened with another president. there are about five places where he's crossed the line into the ledge slave branch but our founding fathers envisioned this, if you set up, and they did, they set up three branches of government, each with their own constitutional power and authority, each with their own domain. they knew there were gray areas in between. you can never write something precisely so it's a very thin, bright line. they did as good as could be done with the language we have and i applaud them, but they envisioned that gray line that couldn't quite be bright enough between the legislative and the

executive or the legislative and the judicial, that line in that triangle, for example, would always be defended by each side, think never imagined that the judicial barrage branch would be able to claim so much authority over the executive or the legislative. they thought that the legislative branch would push back against the judicial branch of government, for example. in this congress, i think, is not well enough informed on its constitutional article 1 prerogative so when the supreme court grasps legislative authority out of that granted in article 1 to congress, seldom to we stand up and claim it back again. and we're so numb to this, that when the president of the united states, the executive branch, reach into article 1 and claims legislative authority, we can't get our back up in this congress to put up a fight and tell the president that's an unconstitutional act, you crossed the line and we're going to hold this thing back and put you back in line and make you keep your oath of

office. now, that's the structure that we have today. and we have some tools that we can use. but we have to have the will. mr. speaker, to bring this around to, i'll call it a subconclusion of this discussion, when you look through a constitutional analysis, and you look at the maximum authority that could be grabbed by the judicial branch or the executive branch or the legislative branch, what's the restraint on that? the article 1 is really the strongest branch of government. the house of representatives is react i to the people. it's set up to be an election every two years so we can be reactive to the people. an example would be when people lost their good political judgment here in congress and passed obamacare in 2010. we saw a wave election and 87 new republicans came in, every single one of them ran on repeal of obamacare and every

single one of them voted to repeal obamacare. that's the house reaction. the senate didn't transform itself to that extent in the last election. that was also the vision of the founding fathers but they always saw that there would be a tension between the branches of government that each branch of government would jealously protect its power and that as that little tug of war went on, those lines would be defined over time and by history, by people defending the authority within their respective branch of government, they did not imagine that the united states congress would capitulate law making to the president of the united states and not draw a bright line and not have a fight. and i'm troubled by that, mr. speaker, and now we have a president who has manufactured his own immigration law and now we have people in the united states senate advocating this, as if congress because we declare they have virtual amnesty in america today, it's

not virtual, it's literal, the president created it. i'm not suggesting the previous presidents did a good job of enforcing the law but they didn't manufacture immigration law out of up the air. but this one did he created it. now senators and members in this house also are advocating that there is ke e-- that there is de facto amnesty and the only thing we can to is conform the laws to the amnesty the president has manufactured out of thin air. that's the same thing as conforming this congress to an order by the supreme court. this congress is the final answer on this. whether it's a disagreement with the supreme court, whether it's a disagreement with the executive branch, the house and the senate operating together envisioned by our founding fathers would be, we'll sort this out, if we have to in the end, when there's a constitutional clash, and a tug of war, that is sorted out by the people expressing their judgment at the ballot box.