PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E1788)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Nov 21, 2013
Debt Management Act of 2013 - Requires the Secretary of the Treasury, within 21 to 60 days before any date on which the Secretary anticipates the public debt will reach the current debt limit, to appear before specified congressional committees to provide specified information. (The debt limit was $16.699 trillion before its suspension in the Continuing Appropriations Act, FY2014 [P.L. 113-46].)
Requires the Secretary to include in such appearance:
a report on the state of the public debt, including (1) its historical trajectory, major drivers of the current debt and their quantities, and debt projections; and (2) how, if the debt limit is raised, the United States will meet existing debt obligations, including principal and interest;
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
a detailed explanation of: (1) any proposal of the President to reduce the structural deficit in the short-term (the following fiscal year), medium-term (approximately 3-5 years), and long-term (approximately 10 years); (2) the impact an increased debt limit will have on future federal spending, service provision, and the status of the U.S. dollar as the international reserve currency; (3) projections of fiscal health and resilience to long-term entitlement program pressures (including Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid), given the proposed measures to reduce the structural deficit and the amount of increase in the debt limit; and (4) any proposal of the President to reduce the debt-to-gross domestic product (GDP) ratio, based on current trends, with the exclusion of extreme events (i.e. military, economic, and natural catastrophes); and
a detailed report on the progress of implementing all such proposals.
Declares that this report shall only be delivered if a Secretary has already appeared at least once during any term of office for a particular President.
People & committees
Rep. Marchant, Kenny [R-TX-24] · R–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E1788)
Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 12, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.3579 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.3579 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.3579 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.3579 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.