Disapproval Resolution Relating to Debt Limit Increase

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Some people may be wondering why we find ourselves here today. Some people may be confused as to why we are voting on a resolution to disapprove of the debt limit suspension 2 weeks after the fact. And some people may be asking why I introduced this resolution of disapproval on behalf of some people who voted ``yes'' and others who voted ``no'' to give the President the authority to suspend the debt limit.

The answers to these questions are much simpler than they might appear.

We are here today because the United States of America carries a debt load of over $17 trillion and counting.

We are voting on this resolution today because this is the procedure that was put in place by the Senate when they crafted a package to end the government shutdown. Many of us voted for that Senate legislation largely because we didn't think it was responsible to risk defaulting on our national debt.

However, I introduced this resolution, and a majority of House Members will vote to disapprove, because it is also not responsible to ignore the problems created by our long-term debt.

Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that a large number in this body voted to avoid default, it would be a gross mischaracterization to say that we approve of a debt limit suspension absent adoption of bold policy reforms that will set our Nation on a sustainable fiscal trajectory.

We must break the habit of negotiating these fiscal deals at the last minute. We must stop kicking the can down the road, proverbially skipping along from crisis to crisis.

Simply put: enough is enough. Let's start talking across party lines about how to fix our debt problems now, not the end of a deadline.

We know that programs like Medicare and Social Security are on unsustainable footing. That is why a Democratic President and Republican House have both offered up reforms for these programs. So if we agree there is a problem, why must we wait until the next crisis to address it?

We know that our Tax Code is outdated and that it has become too larded up with narrowly tailored provisions that benefit only a small number of special interests. That is why our House Ways and Means chairman has met weekly with the Senate Finance chairman to discuss how best to achieve a fairer, flatter Tax Code in a bipartisan way.

If there is agreement here, then why are we looking to self-imposed fiscal deadlines in hopes of getting a deal? I could go on and on, but I think the point is clear: Washington missed an opportunity during our most recent fiscal showdown.

This resolution sends a message that ignoring our problems does not make them go away. It sends a message that we should not wait until the last minute, but should reach across the aisle to face these challenges now; and it sends a message that we take these issues very seriously because they bear directly on job creation, personal income levels, and our collective faith in America's enduring exceptionalism.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution of disapproval.

I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I have so much respect for the long-standing service and distinguished tenure of my colleague on the other side of the aisle, and I just think that there is some clarification that is required in this body and for all who may be watching this evening's proceedings, so let me begin by reminding those who would review the record.

I am not sure I invoked the words ``Republican'' or ``Democrat'' in my opening comments. If I did, it certainly wasn't in a partisan nature. Instead, I extended a hand of friendship. I tried to actually increase trust and offered the hope that we might work together, we might actually work together to work on the very problems that caused me to run for office for the first time in 2010: the $17 trillion national debt that I know has grown to a great degree during the service of the good gentleman on the other side of the aisle who just spoke; the unsustainable entitlement programs that, when push comes to shove and we can no longer find the resources to fund them because people haven't made bold enough leadership decisions, those on the margins of society will be most adversely impacted.

I know these are issues that my good ranking member friend on the other side of the aisle cares about as much as I do. We have just not yet come together and found bipartisan solutions to these things.

Now, the continuing resolution vote that we passed, the package, if you will, the vote that we passed a few days ago, accomplished a few things. We indicated that the President could suspend the debt ceiling, but that move could be checked by votes of disapproval in the House and the Senate. So this was a process that was put into motion by that earlier bipartisan vote that occurred right here in this body.

It is true that it has been made clear over in the other Chamber, the Senate, that the leader there will never bring this bill up in the Senate. That has been made eminently clear. The risk of default is something that ought not be mentioned. We needn't spook the markets here. We will pay our bills in this country. That is something I have been proud to stand for ever since I have been in this body.

The continuing resolution package also indicated that, on February 8, the debt limit would be increased to

reflect the borrowing that occurred during the debt limit suspension period, and then the Treasury would be given the ability to create additional headroom via so-called extraordinary measures after the debt limit was reinstated on February 8, 2014.

So that is the larger context here. It sounds to me very procedural, not particularly partisan. In fact, my hope was that this could be offered in the spirit of bipartisanship. This is a messaging bill.

There was an allusion during my good friend's comments to a message being sent as if that is somehow a negative thing. Now, most of the bills that are introduced in this body are introduced in part, at least, to offer a message to the broader American people, and we stand here and argue on behalf of the message that we are trying to drive home.

The message that I am trying to drive home is that these debt problems have lingered on too long and that to increase a debt limit, to suspend a debt limit, is certainly not to approve further borrowing in the future absent the sort of bold changes that, frankly, have not been enacted when my good friend has served many years in Congress. So that is the larger message here, and that is how I would respond.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished freshman gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wenstrup), who has had a lot of life's experiences.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source