As the stupak dozen, who conditioned their support for the bill upon a provision, which became the stupak amendment, that would prohibit that would prohibit abortions funded under obamacare or required under obamacare. Well, as that debate ensued, the message became clear that the white house was negotiating that the president was simply signing an executive order obamacare after it passed, after it passed and would fix the stupak version. Thats the shorthand version. But any case, it was breathtaking to hear the president in the white house who believed he could sign an executive order to amend legislation after the legislation passed and announced to so to get the votes pass. That sounds like legal jibberish. The president , according to the press, promised he was going to amend obamacare with executive order and the stupak language would remain intact after it was stripped out in the senate and we ended up with obamacare that imposes funding of abortion in all but a very few cases, to give an example, here in the house of representatives, we are compeled to sign up for obamacare. If there was a way out of it, i would have found it. And there were 112 different programs to look at, and only nine of them that i could choose from and only nine didnt Fund Abortion and of those nine, eight didnt cover me. It came down to this member was compeled to sign up for obamacare, pay the doubling of my contribution to the premium and tripling of my deductibility my deductible for the only policy that at least reportedly didnt Fund Abortion. I thank chris smith for digging that up and giving Us Foundation or else i would have to buy a pig in a poke. I know that is going on in many places. The president cannot constitutionally amend legislation by executive order, press conference or a thirdtier announcement from the United States department of treasury. None of those things are consistent with the constitution. And he continues, as mr. Gohmert said in his previous discussion in his one minute, he continues to make alterations, not to somebody else legislation, thats bad enough. It is all the same constitutional violation in my view, but when the president decides he is going to amend obamacare, thats got his name on it. Thats his bill. He signed it. How can he with a straight face step up and say im going to change it on the fly . Im going to delay the employer mandate and delay the individual mandate, im going to waive this and that and waive different provisions for businesses that have 50 employees and those who have 99 employees and those that are large businesses. And i remember also when he stepped up in the press conference at the white house and he had taken a couple of weeks for the conscience protection violations that were supposedly were in the bill that Kathleen Sebelius rules eliminated, which was a requirement that religious organizations as well had to provide policies that covered abortions, contraceptives. Contraceptives and abortioncausing drugs, sterilizations, we know what they were. These were requirements that were embodied in the rule that h. H. S. Rolled out. And after two weeks religious organizations making a case against that, the president did a press conference and stepped up to the podium and said im going to make an accommodation to the religious organizations, an accommodation. They dont want to provide these things, he said im going to require the Insurance Companies to provide these things for free. The president of the United States had the audacity to step up to the podium and say i am going to require the Insurance Companies now to fund contraceptives and sterilizations for free. Now, thats pretty interesting, maybe it just got lost in the language. Maybe the president was really talking about, he was going to agree and going to ask congress if congress would actually change the law. Maybe he thought he was going to have Kathleen Sebelius publish a different rule that would go out for comment and once it followed the administrative procedures, if it fit within the language of the obamacare legislation, maybe, maybe, maybe, mr. Speaker, maybe maybe we could give the president the benefit of the doubt. But trust, but verify. So i went back and checked the rule. The rule that had been published that compeled the religious organizations to follow the path of all of the others to provide r sterilizations and contraceptives and the president was going to make an accommodation to the religious organizations and require that these be provided for free by the Insurance Companies and you would think there would have been a proposal for an amendment a bill to amend obamacare in congress. You would think there would be a change in the rules. Mr. Speaker, nothing changed in the rule. There wasnt an i dotted differently or a t crossed differently, but the Insurance Companies began to line up behind the verbal edict of the president. That is breathtaking in scope. When you read the constitution, it says all legislative powers. Doesnt say all legislative powers except those by the president. It says all legislative powers. Yet, the president is legislating by announcements on web sites and directing his people to change the rules, by verbal press conferences that changed nothing, no rule. Id he has the tumerity to say have a cell phone and pen, i dont need the congress. So im very concerned about our constitution and the violations of it, but the president has time after time after time made changes to obamacare. Its bad law and i dont accept the constitutional decision that came down from the Supreme Court. Its got a clear and stark contradiction. One day i hope it goes back to the court to be reviewed again. But in any case, we have got to adhere to this constitution. We take an oath to uphold the constitution and its our job to preserve and protect it. And the reasons that we might be supportive of a debt ceiling increase or in the shortterm, it gets people off the hook in the shortterm. But i want a balanced Budget Amendment attached to it. If we dont get that, lets audit the fed. Lets something we ought to get behind, eliminate the bailout of our Insurance Companies. Insurance companies were wrote in they would be protected from loss if their ackturel numbers and premiums dont match up. It would be impossible for them to figure this out because the president has been changing this law all along. I would make the clearest one would be when the president of the United States decided that he was going to extend the employer mandate a year. Now, the law says, the law that was signed by president Barack Obama Says that the employer mandate shall commence in each month after december of 2013. That means it must start january of 2014. We should be in the second month of the employer mandate. And im happy enough for the policy to change. I dont think it should ever be implement the. If they bring that extension to congress. I would vote for an extension to delay the employer mandate for a year, because thats probably the right kind of policy. We didnt get that before this congress. Instead, the president just announced, he was going to extend it. And i happen to be on a bit of a trip when the notice came that he was going to do some delays of the individual mandate. And i remember sending an email to one of the top Insurance Companies saying is anyone talking about the constitutional violations . Well, not very much, but yes, they are talking about. My answer is, this is what we get for christmas, the president rewriting obamacare at will. Its everchanging. Months ago, a search of the congressional record will show, mr. Speaker, that i said, nobody knows what the law is. Nobody knows what obamacare the law obamacare is, because it keeps changing and of the thousands of pages of regulations that are piled on top of it on the 2,700 pages of legislation all together, it has been changed over and over again. Insurance companies cant abide these changes, cant adjust these premiums and yet they wrote into the bill the risk corridors and they say we have to have this, because if obamacare is go to be here, we cant be going broke because the president changed the law again. And i say to them, were you for or against obamacare when it passed . Their answer is, well, might check their shoeshine and they said our choice was to be at the table or on the menu. So im supposed to infer and the proper inference was they were at the table. The largest Insurance Companies were not only at the table but at the white house. And sometimes and so, they decided they didnt want to be on the menu and got to the table at the white house and associated their risk corridors and their bail out from losing very much money under obamacare. If they werent on the menu, they were at the table instead. Who was on the menu, mr. Speaker . And i would argue that instead of the Insurance Companies being on the menu, it was the taxpayers that got put on the menu and ended up with risk corridors to bail out Insurance Companies because they wanted to stay in the large Insurance Business and they pleeved if the taxpayers could fund, it is a more reliable funding scheme if you get it from the individual rate pairs. And also, it was designed to put 30 million more people on the insurance rolls. Who in the business expanding their business trying to get a margin. I have paid a lot of premiums. They are an important component in the stability of a Free Enterprise economy, all insurance is, as a matter of fact, but when they drew that protection and wrote that protection in called risk corridors in the bailout for the Insurance Companies into obamacare, somebody was going to pick up the tab. Thats the taxpayers. It expanded their potential universe to 30 million more insureds, 30 million more premiums. There is a profit margin in that. But you expand those premiums to that 30 million and the design that came out of obamacare was we were going to see more insured. And at this point, i would lay it down, mr. Speaker, there are fewer people insured in this country than the day obamacare was signed into law and we are losing people continually and employers watching this employer mandate kick in over time, delayed now, more employers are going to be dropping people from insurance, more employers are cutting hours, more employers are reducing the number of employees. I happen to know of an employer that had 58 employees and lined them up and said, if obamacare is passed into law and implemented, there will be 49 of you, not 58. That have had to have happened all across the country. Businesses that shrunk down to under the 58 mandate and businesses that decided not to grow into 50 employees. Thats the fact of this life. And if you have more than those in employees and then the formerly 40hour work week which has been used to measure a fulltime worker was reduced to under 30 hours, 30 hours not 40. People are getting 28 hours, working 28 hours a week so they are underneath the mandate and the employer then who cant afford the premiums often for this higher cost Health Insurance, can keep his employees on. So here are the circumstances. There might be somebody who has a job and they could be working 48, 50 hours a week. I have done the math on this, mr. Speaker, but running 50 hours a week, the employer looks at that and says i cant afford the Health Insurance. This federal mandate is either going to take me out of business or im going to have to lower your hours. He said you are 28 hours, you are 28 hours, 28 hours. He needs more employees to fill up the production and he hires more parttime workers. Well, thats a good thing for some people, but those who had a fulltime job and time and a half overtime, they get their hours cut. The person who was working 50 hours now is now down to 28 and they have to go get another parttime job that maybe is another 28 hours and up to 46 or 60 hours and dont have Health Insurance. Moms are in the same circumstance. She has been cut. She has to have another job. Mom and dad trying to raise a family when each were maybe working 50 hours a week, now working 56 hours a week with two jobs with transportation and four jobs for two people to raise a family. Those circumstances are emerging today under obamacare, mr. Speaker. And its wrong. We need to raise that minimum, that 40 hour standard that 30hour standard mandate up to 40. That is an essential component to obamacare. Another one is this. Full deductibility for everybodys Health Insurance premium. It has always been wrong that a certain percentage of the american pop us will has had to buy their populous has had to buy their Health Insurance with aftertax dollars. Ive done this for years. That as an employer i start a Construction Company in 1975, provided Health Insurance for our employees. But i couldnt deduct the premium for me. Unless i wrote up unless i incorporated, put myself in the salary and wrote off those wages. I wanted to stay a Sole Proprietor for a number of reasons but i couldnt deduct my Health Insurance premiums. And so the business expense of premiums for my employees, legitimate expense, just like wages, salary and benefits. Write those off, but i couldnt write off my own. So merrill and i had to pay for Health Insurance with aftertax dollars. That piece thats left after you pay uncle sam, after you pay the governor, the takehome pay so to speak. After you pay the tax. Now, here we are in this circumstance where thats not bad. And it should have been changed a long time ago because its an injustice and inequity. But now we have obamacare that mandates that individuals buy that Health Insurance. And its a federal mandate. You shall buy this Health Insurance. Now, in my case it isnt that i go out on the marketplace and shop for a Health Insurance policy. Its that if im going to comply with the law, ive got one choice. One choice only. Thats not competition. That was by the way one of the reasons that the president wanted to pass obamacare, is to thered be more competition. He wanted to have a federal Health Insurance company to compete with the private Sector Companies so that there would be more competition. I dont know if anybodys talked about this in quite some time here on the floor. The president s plan. I had one choice, but to have the federal government impose that you buy a product thats either produced or approved by the federal government, and they take out of your check a command, they comman deer your takehome pay to pay that premium, while thats going on, an employer somewhere, often a large corporation, can deduct that same premium to all their people as a business expense, but mom and pop operations, family farm, whoever it might be, they cant. It puts them at a significant disadvantage. This country needs to provide for full deductibility of everybodys Health Insurance premiums. Its immoral to to compel someone to buy a product thats produced or approved by the federal government and its even more immoral to say to them, and the money you shall pay shall be after tax dollars and im going to send the i. R. S. In to audit you and make sure that youre paying that premium with aftertax dollars and if not, were going to levy a tax against you. It was just going to be a penalty, but now its convenient to make the argument before the Supreme Court that its a tax. A whole series of things that we could do. The debt ceiling is in front of us. Theres an increase thats being pushed at us. If the president s people in this congress think a clean debt ceiling is a good idea, they should step up and all of them pledge to vote for it. I think we might find enough republicans that would vote for a clean debt ceiling increase. If not, mr. Speaker, id suggest that we put a balanced Budget Amendment on that and send it over to harry reid. If that doesnt work, then id suggest that we resurrect ron pauls legislation, audit the fed. Attach that to the debt ceiling. Send it over there. If that doesnt work, then id point put the elimination of the bailouts for health Insurance Companies on there and send it over to the senate. If that doesnt work, then i would take the 30hour workweek, which is supposedly the standard for fulltime, id change that to 40 so that mom and dad, who were working 50 hours, now theyre working 56 hours or 60 hours each, can go can hang on to just one job, not two each, and they would get, instead of having their hours cut from 50 to 28 or maybe even 40 to 28, that they could keep their fulltime job and go to work and manage their lives and their schedules. And by the way, this argument that obamacare, under according to the c. B. O. , obamacare cuts the job equivalent by 2 1 2 million a s over the course of decade, thats also appalling and breathtaking, mr. Speaker. To think that this obamacare that was going to create four million jobs according to then Speaker Pelosi now is going to reduce by 2 1 2 million jobs, thats 6 1 2 million jobs off from what was predicted, compared to what we now have a better look at, what were likely to end up with, and i wont say that numbers certain. It might be greater than that. 2 1 2 million jobs. So how does the administration spin this . You would think that they would find an alternative number and argue the c. B. O. Score. Or you would think that they would find a way to point out that somehow these definitions dont combite match up just right. They looked around pretty hard to find a way to rebut the c. B. O. s numbers and came up empty so they settled on the spin. The spin, mr. Speaker, which is this. Oh, 2 1 2 million jobs, think of this, all those people that dont have to work as much because were borrowing money from the chinese to subsidize the Health Insurance premium, that we require that they pay to buy the insurance under obamacare, and so theyll understand that if they stay under a certain threshold, theyll get a federal premium sunsdy to buy their obamacare subsidy to buy their obamacare, when you reduce this all down and get people under the 0hour workweek, which i just 30hour workweek which i just finished discussing, then theyll have more time to spend with their families, more time to play with their children, more time to paint, ore time to muse about the things in life. Maybe well have more people that are pontificating about metta physics for this price of losing 2 1 2 million jobs. Oh, its a good thing we have people working less in america. Thats the core argument for this administration. Its a good that we have people ing lesses in american less in america it. Gives them more free time. If working less is a good idea, i guess that fits with their philosophy, because we have heard, we have heard from the minority whip, as well as a number of other people, in fact, i believe it would also be the former speaker, say this, unemployment had, food stamps and unemployment are the two quickest way you get economic stimulus. The quickest way to grow the economy. Now, when i first heard that, it was shocking to me that anybody could say that out loud and perhaps believe it. But how do food stamps stimulate the economy, how do unemployment checks stimulate the economy . An economy has to produce goods and services that have a markble value here and abroad. And if you borrow money abroad to pay people not to produce goods and services, let alone those with a marketable value, you are building a nation of debt and a nation of people who, if they haveon skiltsskills are atrophying, because theyre not ewing using them, and as technology increases they get further and further behind but not maintaining the skills they have and not keeping their skills up to date as technology moves. This idea that this is only a consumerdriven economy, this keynesian concept of, lets just say, we cant audit the fed but they can inject qe1 and qe2 and qe3, trillions of dollars into this economy, and because a lot of the world is afraid to invest their we havent seen inflation take a hold in this way yet. But the fed can inject the money into qe3 and then the federal government can do the economic stimulus plan like the president s 825 billion that went north of that, i guess it 7 billion that got to 825 billion, inject this money into the economy, spend this money and its going to stimulate the economy, and this growth will eventually create enough tax money that you work your way out of debt. The problem with that is, mr. Speaker, it has never succeeded. Theres no existing model of a keynesian experiment that has ever brought a country, an economy out of an economic recession. Were in the fifth year of this recovery. I guess you can say that were coming out of the economic recession of 2008. Weve had a slow improvement in unemployment numbers that has taken place. Were down there in the sixes somewhere. Weve watched as the number of 15 million unemployed has worked its way down by a million here, a million there. A year ago there were 12 million unemployed. Today, according to the most recent report, there are 10. 2 million unemployed. Actually its been a full two Million People less on the unemployment rolls. But the monthly job increases that weve seen, 74,000 last month, a little over 100,000 this month. Not nearly enough to keep pace, mr. Speaker. And this growth has been down there to where if you look at the last four to five years, the g. D. P. Increase in the economy has been greater in mexico than it has the United States. And as i listened to some of the, let me say some of the selfappointed economic pecks earth experts, theyll explain to us that we need to import more people into the United States that have that are that have low or no skill, and likely are illy the rate in their own language illiterate in their own language, to do work that americans dont want to do in this country, because in doing so will stimulate our economy and increase our fertility rate. We know who those people are, mr. Speaker. That seem to think that. Much of this concept is just simply wrong. Deensian keynesian economics is wrong. The idea of an open border as an economic stimulater is wrong. What is right is are the understanding of first principles. The understanding of the pillars of american exceptionalism. The understanding that put those parameters in place by our Founding Fathers well more than 200 years ago. When they saw that we had to have the rule of law in america. Without the rule of law were not a lot different than thirled world countries and third world countries and were a nation of laws, not of men. And laws need to be applied equally to all of us. The problem we have today is looks like those who, lets say at not favored by the current administration, have to fear the law more than those who are favored. One of those examples would be the i. R. S. , mr. Speaker. Our Founding Fathers would have never envisioned an i. R. S. In the first place. It took a constitutional amendment to even provide it, the 16th amendment. I introduced that legislation each year to repeal the 16th amendment. One day i hope to see that done. But in the meantime, our Founding Fathers imagined that there would be taxes gathered through other means and that the government would be limited, our constitution is the very description of limited government, the concept of federalism. Mr. Speaker, sometimes needs to be defined and described, especially so young people understand federalism, the evolution of power out to the political subdivisions, to the states respectively, or to the people. A limited federal government with enough power to protect our borders and our shores, to leave us as much as possible otherwise alone, and let the states and their political subdivisions and the people solve those problems so that the laboratories of the states can be where the experiments are taken place. They are to some degree. I see some of these experiments. There are some states that have some healthy experiments and one of them is texas, no income tax, dynamic economy, one that has shown that its demonstrated to be a big chunk of the growth in our g. D. P. And the growth of employment in the country. Because they run a free and fair government in texas. And no income tax. Florida is a state with no income tax. South dakota is a state with no income tax. They seem to be destination states for people seeking to get out of hightax states like illinois, california. The models of state that are in economic difficulty. Additionaly, mr. Speaker, weve seen some cities that have been additionally, mr. Speaker, week of seen some cities that have been run by that keynesian economy of borrow, tax and spend, get to the point of collapse and ruin. Detroit among them. A great, Great American city with a tremendous legacy, a vibrant tone within the history of america, shuffled down into bankruptcy and with grass growing in the streets of the city because they didnt take care of their finances. Thats whats in store for entire states, if they dont turn the corner. Thats whats in store for this country if we dont turn the corner. Mr. Speaker, im quite concerned that politics here in the house of representatives is downstream from the culture. Politics in any legislative body is generally downstream from the culture. Yes, we have leaders here, we have leaders that step up and strike the right tone and chart the right course, but they would not be followed unless the culture provided the directive. This grand country that we are is dependent upon the people in this country understanding what made us great, preserving and protecting and refurbishing those pillars of american exceptionalism that can sustain a greatness into the future above and beyond anything we have achieved today. Thats whats in store for us if we teach our children responsibility of work and teach them the core of our faith, the faith that laid the foundation for america, the faith that will see us through any trials, the foundation for the family, the ideal to raise children, mom, dad and family raising their children with love and setting the standard for them and setting the standard of work as well as morality. And this country can come back again and we need to teach American History and pillars of american exceptionalism and those young people need to emerge as the leaders from all walks of life, from educational, journism, to production and reveer and respect all work and honor. And we need to put a lot more americans back to work. There are over 101 million americans of working age who are simply not in the work force. Dont need more import. We need the incentive for americans to step up and shoulder the burden with the rest of us. Thats more important. Mr. Speaker, well see how the debt ceiling unfolds and appreciate your attention and yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. Under the speakers announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from new york, mr. Jeffries, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. Mr. Jeffries i ask members be given five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. The speaker pro tempore without objection. Mr. Jeffries its an honor and a privilege to come to the floor of the house of representatives and to anchor this Congressional Black Caucus special order in partnership with my coanchor, distinguished the gentleman from nevada, representative horsford, where for the next 60 minutes, members of the Congressional Black Caucus will have the opportunity to speak directly to the American People about an issue of great consequence and great significance for our country, for our economy, for our future and for our wellbeing, and that is the debt ceiling. Yogimr. Speaker, this is a berra moment. Deja vu moment. Time and time and time again we have been forced to come to the floor of the house of representatives and urge our colleagues on the it other side of the aisle not to plunge this country into a painful default and risk the full faith and credit of the United States of america for the first time in the history of the republic. And whenever we have been forced to have this conversation, we are always put into a position where we need to clarify what the debt ceiling is really all about, because its been subject to a lot of misrepresentation. The debt ceiling is not a backward, forwardlooking vehicle that is designed to give the president the opportunity to spend more. It is a backwardlooking vehicle designed to give the president the opportunity to pay bills that the congress has already incurred. Bills that were incurred during the previous decade, bills that were incurred during the eight years of the Bush Administration , during which time, our good friends on the other side of the aisle were in control of both the house and the senate and will go into that in greater detail as we move forward. Lets have an honest conversation about the realities that we face concerning the debt in this country in excess of 17 trillion. Theres reason for us to be concerned about it. But lets not manipulate the facts as to how we found ourselves into this situation. Im pleased that we have been joined by a very distinguished member of the congress and of the freshman class. In fact, we refer to him as the Ranking Member of the c. B. C. Freshman class in the 113th congress. Im pleased now to yield to my good friend, representative donald payne junior. Mr. Payne thank you to my colleague, the gentleman from new york and the gentleman from nevada for their continuous leadership on these c. B. C. Special orders. Im honored to join them once ain on a topic that is paramount right now in our nations history and also a situation that we must deal with in a manner to keep this nation moving forward. Mr. Speaker, i rise today to ask my friends on the other side of the aisle to do one simple thing, it is something that we expect from every american and every person in this country expects it from us. That simple thing im asking for, mr. Speaker, is for congress to pay our nations bills on time. There should be no resistance, no strings attached, no threats of default. Americans deserve better than to have the full faith and credit of the United States of america held hostage so that some of my republican colleagues can demand ransome for their radical agenda. Mr. Speaker, the full faith and credit of the United States is nonnegotiable, period. So im urging this congress to raise the debt ceiling swiftly and do it with no strings attached. Only recent in our nations history has the debt ceiling been used as a reckless bargaining chip. In fact, since the great hero of the other side, Ronald Reagan, took office, the debt ceiling has been raised 45 times. It is nothing new and its nothing radical. Now, the allegations put out there about what raising the debt ceiling will do to our deficitr at best, misleading. The debt ceiling does not grow. The debt ceiling does not grow our deficit by one single dime. Rather what it does is permit the government to pay what this congress has already decided to spend. We had the credit card. We used the credit card. Now its time to pay our nations bills and pay them on time. So, mr. Speaker, raising the debt ceiling is in fact the fiscally responsible thing to do here. If we default, the cost to American Families will be significant. 26 million americans wont get their Social Security checks on march 3. Ill repeat that. 26 million americans will not get their Social Security checks on march 3. There are 1. Million seniors, children and disabled people of new jersey who receive Social Security to help make ends meet, and many of them will not see their check if this is not followed through. Nearly four million veterans may not receive their disability benefits, including 50,000 veterans in new jersey. Now, the other side of the aisle needs to take these things seriously. They talk about supporting veterans. They talk about supporting working families. They talk about all of these values, but if the debt ceiling is not raised, these families will not get the support and the benefit that they need to make ends meet. So, mr. Speaker, it is incumbent upon the members on the other side of the aisle, instead of just talking the talk, walk the walk. New jersey families will have to pay higher Interest Rates for mortgages, auto loans, Student Loans and credit cards. Many families in my district already cant afford to send their children to college. A default would put a College Education further out of reach. Im hopeful that my republican colleagues have learned their lesson from the last default threat in 2011 and from shutting down the government last year. The last time that we even threatened to default in 2011, the economy flew into a tailspin, the markets plummeted, Consumer Confidence took a nose dive and our Credit Rating was downgraded. Our economic recovery came to a screeching halt because of it. And in an already fragile recovery, we cannot afford another possible meltdown of our economy. And so im urging my republican colleagues to help try and set an example to hope they have learned their lesson from last year where they shut down the federal government. Lets pay our nations bills on time, mr. Speaker. If we demand this kind of responsibility from the American People, then we should demand it from ourselves. And i yield back. Mr. Jeffries thank the distinguished the gentleman from new jersey for walking us through some of the episodes that the American People have been subjected to as a result of the extreme behavior that has been articulated and enacted, in fact, as part of the agenda put forth by the majority over the last two terms. Its time, mr. Speaker, to end the irresponsibility, end the recklessness, end the extremism, end the brinkmanship so we can get back to doing the business of the American People with a fiscally responsible, sustainable course, but one that recognizes that here in this congress, time and time again, we have inflicted wounds on the economy and on the American People. We did it last spring and advanced a sequestration taking effect. We were warned by independent economists that if you allow sequestration to take effect, 85 billion in random cuts spread out without reason across he economy, it would cost us approximately 750,000 jobs. But yet it happened. And then we were warned that it would be problematic if you allow the government to shut down. And yet nonetheless, some people couldnt help the recklessness, the irresponsibility, the extremism, so the government was shut down for 16 days. Standard poors estimated that it cost us 24 billion in lost economic productivity. And yet, here we are again. Yogey bera moment, deja vu, confronting another manufactured, manmade, unnecessary crisis. Just lift the debt ceiling, consistent with what has happened time and time again across democratic and republican administrations. Mr. Speaker, let me yield now to our good friend, the coanchor of the c. B. C. Special order, the distinguished gentleman from the silver state, my good friend, representative horsford. Mr. Horsford thank you. I thank my good friend and colleague from the debate state of new york, mr. Jeffries, and your leadership in anchoring this hour on behalf of the Congressional Black Caucus and to bring the American People into a very important conversation about what the house of representatives should be doing, as you talked about tonight, and that is, mr. Speaker, raising the debt ceiling and averting another crisis. We are here tonight to urge our colleagues on the other side to work with democrats and the administration to pass a clean and swift debt ceiling expansion without delay. The secretary of the treasury emphasized in a letter to congressional leadership last friday that no congress in our history has failed to meet this responsibility. And it would be a mistake to wait until the last possible minute to act. And why should we act, mr. Speaker, why should we delay enacting . This congress, unfortunately being known as the donothing ngress, has failed to pass more bills than other previous sessions of congress. At a time when the American Public expect their elected officials to Work Together to get things done, under the leadership of the majority, fewer than 60 bills that have been passed by congress have ultimately become law. In the last year. And now were here facing yet another selfimposed, civil inflicted crisis as my civil inflicted crisis as my selfinflicted crisis as my colleagues have said, this is nonsense. The American Public is looking at congress and saying, do your job. The Treasury Department has made clear that it will exhaust all extraordinary measures in meeting our countrys final financial obligations by february 27. And the house, this house, is only in session for five more days between now and then, mr. Speaker. That is why were here to urge our republican colleagues to act to raise the debt ceiling now. To do it swiftly, to do it without putting our countrys debt or full faith and credit of the United States at risk. At my colleagues have said, we have to raise the debt and it is not for negotiation. Let us remember that the debt ceiling has been raised 45 times since president Ronald Reagan took office. It doesnt grow our deficits by a single dime, all it does is allow the treasury to pay for what this congress has already spent and the obligations believe congresses have already previous congresses have already made on behalf of the United States. There has already been much talk about Speaker Boehner turning something that could be very simple into a hostage situation with sweeping concessions. So i would hope that my republican colleagues remember the damage that was caused the last time we debated increasing the debt ceiling. And the fact that House Republicans are debating among themselves another demand to hold our full faith and credit of the United States hostage is outrageous. And as weve stated before, mr. Speaker, House Democrats agree with president obama that the full faith and credit of the United States is nonnegotiable. I stand with House Democrats in support of a clean debt ceiling increase that ensures the full faith and credit of the United States of america and avoids having this Congress Play political games and brinksmanship. Weve said it before and well say it again. We should be representing the peoples best interests, not punishing them. There are drastic implications to not passing this debt ceiling increase by february 27, and i want to yield time back to my colleague, mr. Jeffries, for us to be able to highlight some of these damaging consequences. I know in my home state of nevada it would mean an average ncrease in Mortgage Rates, leaving the average homebuyer to pay an additional 100 a onth, costing families 36,000 over the lifetime of a typical 0year mortgage. 85,267 nevada residents took out a Home Mortgage or refinanced their existing mortgage in the past year. All of them would be subject to these increases in mortgage Interest Rates. So this is just one example of one state and the families that would be impacted. This is the type of impact that would happen across our nation. The consequences are real, its time for our colleagues on the other side to stop playing games, increase the debt ceiling, meet our obligations, i yield back time to my colleague. Mr. Jeffries i thank the distinguished gentleman for pointing out some of the catastrophic consequences that the American People will be forced to endure if we fail to raise the debt ceiling and force a default in threatening the full faith and credit of the United States of america for the first time in the history of the republic. I just want to go over some of the things that would be at stake, as a few of my colleagues have already late out, but it bears reemphasis laid out, but it bears reemphasis. The Social Security payments owed to the American People will be jeopardized by a failure to raise the debt ceiling. Veterans benefits will be jeopardized by a failure to raise the debt ceiling. Mortgage Interest Rates could increase as a result of a failure to raise the debt ceiling. Automobile loan Interest Rates coin crease as a result of a could increase as a result of a failure to raise the debt ceiling. Credit card payments, as a result of an increase in interest, connected to debt thats held on American Express or mastercard or visa or any of the other credit cards that the American People have could increase as a result of a failure to raise the debt ceiling. This is not an esoteric concept. This is something that will have a real impact on the American People and thats why we need a debt ceiling increase consistent with what every congress and every american president has done since the founding of this country. Now, i want to read into the record and perhaps have my good friend react to it, a president ial letter that relates to this debt ceiling issue and it reads in part, this country now possesses the strongest country in the world. Credit in the world. The full consequences of a default or even the serious prospect of default by the United States are impossible to predict and awesome to contemplate. Denigration of the full faith and credit of the United States would have substantial effects on a domestic Financial Market on our domestic Financial Markets and on the value of the dollar. In exchange markets. The nation can ill afford to allow such a result. This is a letter that was written on november 16, 1983, by president Ronald Reagan, addressed to then Senate Majority leader howard baker. President reagan, i believe, my good friends on the other side of the aisle, have deified him as a fiscal warrior, a true conservative. Yet we know that Ronald Reagan raised the debt ceiling 18 times during his presidency and in this letter to senator baker lace out in bold, uncompromising terms the consequences of a failure to raise the debt ceiling. This is not a partisan issue. We as democrats are not standing here on the floor of the house of representatives because we want to beat up the other side. Were here to defend the best interests of the American People. East, west, north, south, rural america, urban america, and suburban america, because the consequences of a failure to raise the debt ceiling will hurt everybody. So if the distinguished gentleman from nevada could just react to the notion that this is somehow a partisan issue that needs to be discussed, so that president obama is being fiscally irresponsible by requesting that congress do its constitutional duty. Mr. Horsford thank you. I appreciate my good friend for yielding. And the remarks by the former president , president reagan, speak to the reality of the consequence of Congress Failing to act and what that will mean to our economy, to average americans, to businesses, to the Global Economy because of the role that the United States plays, and toll vat of the dollar. And and to the value of the dollar. And to somehow hold this process hostage because members on the other side have still not come to terms that the election is over, the president won, and it is time for this congress to work with him to move our country forward. Not to use this as another means to extract more concessions or demands in order for you to do your job. You dont have to agree with the president on everything, but what you do have to do is your job, on behalf of the American People that elected you. Now, while no one knows with certainty the full extent of the damage to the economy, should the u. S. Default on its debts, and we dont know because its never happened, because every other congress, regardless of party, regardless of which Party Controls the white house or the administration at a given time, did its job to extend and raise e debt, what we do know is that the average American Family will feel a significant negative impact. Were not here to scare our constituents. Our constituents are going through enough every day, trying to survive to make ends meet, to put food on the table, working hard for themselves and their families, but what we are here to do is to talk about what some of the potential impacts might be. And so let me highlight that. If you look for a moment at this chart, this graphic provides some explanation, what are the debt ceiling deniers missing . Household wealth would decrease by 1 trillion. If we fail to raise the debt ceiling. Retirement assets would drop by 800 billion. At a time when people are trying to provide a security for themselves and their future , a decision by this congress to fail to raise the debt ceiling could result in 800 billion of Retirement Assets declining. Weve talked about ancrease in Interest Rates for borrowers an increase in Interest Rates for borrowers. At a time when our Housing Market is beginning to recover from the prolonged recession, why would this Congress Fail to act and the consequence of that result in increased Mortgage Rates for homeowners and borrowers . And a huge hit, a huge hit for Financial Markets around the globe, causing the dow jones and the s p to plummet. Families Retirement Savings and 401ks would drop as the stock market plummets. 3. 4 million veterans who could not receive the disability payments. 10 million americans not receiving Social Security checks on time in just the first week alone. Delayed tax refunds for up to 110 million americans. And drug reimbursements under medicare stopping and doctors and hospitals not getting paid. All for what . So that our colleagues on the other side who dont like the results of an election can use the debt ceiling as another attempt to get more concessions and more demands for things and ideas that have already been rejected by the American Public. So, mr. Speaker, were here to say enough is enough already. Lets get to work. Lets make 2014 a year of action, not obstruction. And it starts by increasing the debt ceiling, meeting our obligations and not doing harm to an already fragile economy and to an American Public that expects their representatives to act in their best interests. Mr. Jeffries i thank mr. Jeffries i thank the gentleman for that illustration, and for the explanation as it relates to the state of denial that i think some in this chamber or throughout the capitol are in as it relates to the real consequences of a default and what it really means to threaten the full faith and credit of the United States of america. This denial synd i
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.