[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 23, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H227-H236]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  0920
 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 325, NO BUDGET, NO PAY ACT OF 2013

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 39 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                               H. Res. 39

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     325) to ensure the complete and timely payment of the 
     obligations of the United States Government until May 19, 
     2013, and for other purposes. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment printed 
     in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as 
     amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, 
     as amended, and on any amendment thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate, 
     with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and 
     Means and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on House 
     Administration; and (2) one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Womack). The gentleman from Texas is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my 
friend, the gentleman from Worcester, Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. All time 
yielded is for the purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
on H. Res. 39.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Today's debate is about one very simple but profoundly 
important goal, Mr. Speaker, and that is restoring our vibrant economy 
by reducing the crippling weight of the growing debt caused by our 
Federal Government.
  In the coming months, we face a string of deadlines that will force 
Congress and the administration to address the fundamental challenge of 
our trillion-dollar deficit and its mounting effect on our economy and 
jobs in America. We've already exceeded $16 trillion in debt, and 
Republicans find this debt level absolutely unacceptable and that is 
why we are here today. By contrast, President Obama seems to be 
perfectly comfortable with the idea of reaching $23 trillion, which is 
where we'll be at the end of his second term if we continue his 
policies in that direction.
  While $16 trillion in debt is stifling our economy, $23 trillion 
would crush it. It would crush the dreams and hopes and aspirations of 
our great Nation and the people who will certainly follow us, our 
children and our grandchildren. That's why, today, we're considering 
this rule and the underlying bill in order to reverse this course. Our 
great Speaker, John Boehner, and our majority leader, Eric Cantor, are 
pleased that this bill is on the floor today to discuss not just this 
important activity with our Members of Congress, but to let the 
American people know we are serious about what needs to be done to save 
this country from this crippling debt.
  We will use the upcoming weeks and the looming deadlines before us as 
a means to enacting a more meaningful and lasting reform so that we can 
begin to grapple with this skyrocketing debt. At the same time, today's 
rule and the underlying bill will allow us to turn up pressure on the 
Senate to join the

[[Page H228]]

House in offering real solutions. Together, these actions will help to 
reignite our engines to grow our economy and to restore discipline and 
accountability to our Federal budget.
  The first of the looming deadlines we face is the debt ceiling limit. 
The underlying bill would temporarily suspend this limit so that we 
have the opportunity to craft comprehensive reforms without risking 
default on the debt that our Nation has incurred. Risking default would 
be counterproductive to our Republican agenda of restoring economic 
growth, getting our fiscal house in order, and ensuring that we do not 
burden future generations with intolerable debt.
  We will not risk the full faith and credit of the United States, but 
neither will we compromise a long-term extension of this debt ceiling 
without slashing wasteful Federal spending, enacting meaningful 
entitlement reform, and ending the era of trillion-dollar deficits. By 
taking this temporary action, we are keeping the focus where it needs 
to be: resolving the coming debates on sequestration, the expiring 
continuing resolution, and the fiscal year 2014 budget through fiscal 
discipline and entitlement reform. Suspending the debt ceiling until 
May 19 provides the House and the Senate with much-needed time to pass 
a budget and then consider how best to deal with the sequester.
  The underlying bill also takes action to ensure that the Senate 
becomes an active partner, which we want and need and the American 
people, I think, expect, in our efforts to reform Federal spending. For 
nearly 4 years, the Senate has failed to meet its most basic 
obligation: passing a budget. During this time, the Senate has 
collected its own paychecks despite being derelict in its most 
important duty.
  In the private sector, there are consequences for failing to do one's 
job. This resolution will impose the same accountability on Members of 
Congress that private sector workers face. Oh, yes, and we're putting 
that same obligation on the House as we would want them to accept in 
the Senate. That is, if you don't get your work done, you don't get 
paid.
  The power of the purse is the most fundamental duty the Constitution 
places upon Congress. For far too long, this power has not been wielded 
with the discipline and accountability necessary to do so responsibly 
and sustainably. There are a host of challenges that must be addressed, 
but the entire process begins with a joint budget resolution. As long 
as the Senate is unwilling or unable to do its job, our efforts in the 
House to deliver real solutions to the American people will continue to 
be impeded.
  Some have questioned whether the action we are taking is 
constitutional. The 27th Amendment of the Constitution prohibits 
legislation that varies the salary of Members of the current Congress. 
This provision was intended to prevent Members of the House and the 
Senate from giving themselves a pay raise without first standing before 
the voters.
  This bill upholds both the letter and the spirit of the 27th 
Amendment. It would not change a Member's rate of compensation in any 
way; they just don't get to collect it until they do their jobs. And 
until they get their work done, we simply cannot adopt a permanent 
extension to that debt ceiling.
  This body will work to ensure that the Senate performs the most basic 
of tasks to pass a budget, and we'll do our job also. We will continue 
to work for meaningful entitlement and spending reforms to take us 
beyond our current cycle of crisis and deadlines in favor of long-term 
solutions. As we do all of this in order to invigorate our economy and 
put our Nation back to prosperity for ourselves and for future 
generations, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the 
underlying legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas, the new 
chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. Sessions, for yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes.
  I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me say to my colleagues, 
both Democratic and Republican colleagues, that they ought to vote 
against this rule. The bill before us today was not the product of 
deliberation in either the Ways and Means Committee or the House 
Administration Committee. There were no hearings. It was brought before 
the Rules Committee last night, and not a single amendment was made in 
order. This is a closed rule.

                              {time}  0930

  So if my friend from Texas wants to usher in a new policy of openness 
in this Congress, we should have had this rule open so that Members 
could have an opportunity to express themselves and to have their 
viewpoints made known. But, again, it is a completely closed rule.
  So this rule should be defeated. It should go back to the Rules 
Committee. We ought to come back with something that allows this 
Chamber to be able to do its deliberation.
  And Mr. Speaker, we ought to be here today to raise the debt ceiling, 
not because we like the idea of raising the debt ceiling, but because 
that's the right thing to do. It is the right thing to do for our 
country and for our economy.
  It is the right thing to do for the businesses of this country, so 
that they have some certainty that we will not default on our debts. 
And if they had that certainty, they would then invest in our economy 
and help create more jobs and help create more opportunity for people.
  You know, one of the things I have heard from Republicans and 
Democrats who I've bumped into at all types of occasions, they may have 
differences on our tax policy, they may have differences on our 
economic policy, but the one thing that everybody seems to agree on is 
that Congress ought to provide certainty. And this is anything but 
certainty, because what we are doing today, thanks to the Republican 
leadership, is to bring a short-term extension of the debt ceiling to 
the floor, which means that they have decided, once again, to play 
partisan politics with the debt ceiling.
  This is a bad idea. This is not the way a mature governing body ought 
to behave. We ought to do our job.
  Next month the United States will hit the debt ceiling and, without 
action, the United States will default on its debts. Now, the last time 
the Republican leadership played this dangerous game of economic 
Russian roulette, they threatened the full faith and credit of the 
United States for the first time in our history. For some reason they 
seem hell-bent on doing it again.
  We need to be clear about one thing. The debt limit is not about new 
spending, it's not about increasing the deficit. The debt limit is 
simply the way Congress pays for things that we have already bought, 
things like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, by the way, that my 
friends on the other side continue to insist that we don't pay for; it 
just goes on a credit card. Things like the Medicare prescription drug 
benefit that was not paid forward that my friends on the other side of 
the aisle championed, things that the Republicans have voted for over 
and over and over again.
  Now, we can and we should have an open and thoughtful debate about 
our spending priorities and our deficit. That is what we're supposed to 
do. But playing games with the debt limit, threatening to default, 
should not be an option. But that's just what the bill before us does. 
It, once again, kicks the can down the road.
  Now, instead of passing a clean, long-term debt ceiling bill, one 
that could ensure that America doesn't default on its debt and 
obligations, the Republicans have chosen to bring a bill up that would 
put us right back in the same place that we're in now in May, 3 months 
from now.
  So what's next, Mr. Speaker? A 3-week extension of the debt ceiling? 
Three days? Three hours?
  My Republican friends go on and on about how the business community 
needs and deserves certainty from Washington, but treating the full 
faith and credit of the United States like just another political 
talking point is no way to create certainty.
  How ironic, Mr. Speaker, that the Republican Party, the party that 
took

[[Page H229]]

a record surplus and turned it into a record deficit, the party that 
put two major wars on the Nation's credit card, the party that refused 
to pay for two rounds of tax cuts and a massive, expansive prescription 
drug benefit, now wants to pay its bills. Now wants to pay its bills.
  The same group of people that got us into this mess are now telling 
us that they want to get us out of this mess. The fact is, on the issue 
of the deficit and on the issue of the debt, my friends on the other 
side of the aisle, I do not believe, have any credibility.
  You know, there's an old show business saying, Mr. Speaker: you got 
to have a gimmick. And my Republican friends never cease to disappoint 
me. They always have a gimmick. They believe in government by gimmicks. 
And this No Budget, No Pay bill is another gimmick.
  Let's kind of play this out. What their bill says is if the House 
doesn't pass a budget bill by April 15, we don't get paid. If the 
Senate doesn't pass a budget bill by April 15, they don't get paid.
  Now, I have no doubt that they have the votes to ram whatever they 
want through the House of Representatives, and I expect that they will 
bring us yet another budget bill that has the same extreme, excessive 
spending cuts in programs that benefit the middle class and poor that 
they brought before us last year. So I think they will bring a bill to 
the floor.

  And let's say the Senate does bring a budget bill to the floor and 
they pass it. This bill does not require that there be a conference 
report that is voted on by both the House and the Senate as a condition 
of whether or not Members get paid.
  So, again, this is not a solution. What this is just more political 
gamesmanship. You pass something in the House that may be totally 
irreconcilable, something that will never be able to be conferenced 
with the Senate. Senate, you pass whatever you want, it doesn't have to 
be conferenceable with the House, and there we are. And there we are, 3 
months from now, in the same position that we are in now.
  You know, the way this should be done, and I know this is a radical 
idea, but the way this should be done is the leadership of the 
Republican side should speak with the leadership of the Democratic 
side, and let's see if we can kind of agree on a way to proceed. There 
ought to be serious discussions.
  I'll also point out for my colleagues and for those who are watching, 
there were a couple of occasions over the last year and a half where 
Speaker Boehner came very close to coming to agreement with the White 
House on a bigger deal. And on those two occasions the Speaker walked 
away and said no after he came very close to saying yes.
  Why did he say no?
  It had nothing to do with the Senate not having passed a budget 
resolution. It had everything to do with the fact that when the Speaker 
came back and talked to his Republican rank-and-file Members, they all 
said no. They said no. It doesn't cut Medicare enough. It doesn't cut 
Social Security enough. It doesn't cut food stamps enough. It doesn't 
cut education enough. It doesn't cut job creation enough.
  There are people on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, who are 
using this not as an opportunity to balance our budget, but they're 
using this as an opportunity to gut government, to end the public 
sector. They see this as their opportunity. And as a result, we have 
this uncertainty. And as a result, the American people pay the price. 
As a result, this economy is not recovering as quickly as it needs to 
be.
  I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule, this closed 
rule. This is not the way we should begin this session.
  Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle, enough of the gimmicks. It's time to get serious about doing the 
people's business, and this is not doing the people's business.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I will insert into the Record an article 
from The Washington Post dated January 22, 2013.
  Mr. Speaker, I'd like to now discuss, if I can, this Washington Post 
article which is out today, which says the Senate Majority Leader Harry 
Reid praised House leaders for moving ahead with a bill that would give 
the government borrowing authority into the future.
  He further said that he not only is very glad that we're going to 
send a clean debt ceiling bill, but that he felt like it would be good 
for the Senate to be able to take up this action.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, what we're trying to do is to empower those things 
that we know this institution, the House and the Senate--where we work 
closer together, where we both do our work.
  And yesterday, the gentleman representing the Ways and Means 
Committee, Mr. Ryan, who's also Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House 
Budget Committee, in testimony said that he intended to make sure that 
he would produce a bill exactly supporting what we are trying to do 
here today, and would bring that to the floor, and would be faithful in 
doing that.
  Look, maybe people are upset that we're putting their pay at risk. 
Maybe people are upset because it wasn't their idea. But the bottom 
line is that Paul Ryan, John Boehner, Eric Cantor, the Rules Committee, 
yesterday said we think it's a good bill, and we were joined by Harry 
Reid, the Senate Majority Leader.
  When the Senate Majority Leader can agree with Republicans about a 
great direction to go that will empower the Senate and join with them 
in trying to make sure that we get our job done, I think that's a rare 
day. I think that's a good day when we can work together, when we can 
bring legislation that the Senate openly welcomes and, might I add, the 
President of the United States, President Obama, would sign this 
legislation. And he said so in the Statement of Administration Policy.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

               [From the Washington Post, Jan. 22, 2013]

   Reid Say's He's Pleased With House GOP's `Clean Debt Ceiling Bill'

                       (By Rosalind S. Helderman)

       Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) praised House 
     leaders Tuesday for moving ahead with a bill that would give 
     the government borrowing authority into May, without 
     demanding deep spending cuts in return.
       He said Democrats will discuss in coming days how to deal 
     with a House provision, attached to the bill, that would 
     require the Senate to adopt a budget for the first time in 
     four years or see their pay docked. He said he would be 
     meeting with the Senate Budget Committee Chairwoman Patty 
     Murray (D-Wash.) to discuss the Republicans' ``no budget, no 
     pay provision.''
       ``I'm very glad that they're going to send us a clean debt 
     ceiling bill,'' Reid told reporters. ``The other stuff on it, 
     we'll approach that when we need to. But I'm glad we're not 
     facing crisis here in the matter of a few days.''
       The government hit the $16.4 trillion debt ceiling in 
     December. The Treasury Department has been using 
     extraordinary measures to extend the limit but has said that 
     if Congress doesn't act to raise the limit by the end of 
     February, the United States will be unable to meet its 
     spending obligations and will default.
       Republicans had been threatening to refuse to raise the 
     limit unless Democrats offered deep entitlement cuts in 
     return. They announced a new strategy Monday: Suspend the 
     debt ceiling until May 19, while pressuring the Senate to 
     adopt a budget. The House will vote on the temporary lifting 
     of the debt ceiling on Wednesday.
       Reid stopped short of saying the Senate would adopt the 
     measure without changes if it passes the House on Wednesday. 
     But by characterizing the House bill as a ``clean'' increase 
     in the nation's borrowing limit--a longtime demand of the 
     White House and Democrats--he suggested its passage in the 
     Senate will not be difficult.
       ``I'm happy they sent us a debt ceiling not tied to 
     entitlement cuts and dollar-for-dollar [cuts],'' Reid said. 
     ``That's a big step in the right direction. The other stuff 
     on it, Sen. Murray is going to be the spokesperson on that 
     for the next 24 hours or so. We'll see how she wants to 
     proceed.''
       The result of the House action, he said, was to buy time: 
     ``We have many months to work through this,'' he said.
       Reid's review was far more positive than that of House 
     Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), who blasted the GOP 
     measure as a diversion tactic to reporters Tuesday. If House 
     Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) has support from fellow 
     Republicans, however, he can pass the bill Wednesday without 
     the votes of House Democrats.

                              {time}  0940

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I'm glad the gentleman from Texas agrees with Harry Reid. I hope he 
agrees with Harry Reid on more things in the future. But the fact of 
the matter is this show business before us does nothing other than 
postpone this

[[Page H230]]

debate on the debt ceiling for 3 months. It doesn't require a finished 
product. It does not require that we actually have something that 
amounts to a deal that goes to the President's desk. The House will 
pass their extreme budget, like they always do. The Senate will 
probably do something. And then nothing else is required. There's no 
requirement for a deal in order to get your pay.
  This is show business. And what we should be doing is providing 
certainty to the business community that we're not going to default on 
our obligations in 3 months. And we ought to come together and figure 
out a way to be able to get this budget in balance without destroying 
the social safety net in this country. Again, the problem has always 
been--and let's be clear about this--as much as I get frustrated with 
the Senate, the problem on this is not the Senate. The problem is the 
rank-and-file Republicans in the House Republican Conference who, every 
time the Speaker of the House goes to them with a deal, they say, No. 
They always say it doesn't cut deep enough, it doesn't eliminate 
programs that help the poor, it doesn't eliminate programs that help 
the middle class, it doesn't eliminate programs that help create jobs. 
Because the ultimate goal of so many on the other side is not about a 
balanced budget. They don't care about balanced budgets. They're the 
ones who took this balanced budget that Bill Clinton had and turned it 
into one of the worst deficits and debt in our country. They don't care 
about that. They care about eliminating the public sector. That's what 
this is about. Three months? Please. Three months? What kind of 
certainty is that?
  I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York 
(Ms. Slaughter), the distinguished ranking member of the Rules 
Committee.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank my colleague for yielding to me. And I want to 
continue what he was saying, despite the fact I've got a greet speech 
here. But it's terribly important, I think, that we try to make the 
point one more time that process here is turned upside down and is 
totally meaningless. So John Boehner and Paul Ryan and Harry Reid and 
the Rules Committee all agree. That leaves out about 500 more people 
who have been sent here from the districts to represent what the people 
who live there think.
  This is not the first time this has happened. A couple of weeks ago, 
on the fiscal cliff, we had a thing that came up from nowhere called 
Plan B. John Boehner liked that. I guess Paul Ryan liked that. I'm not 
sure what Harry Reid thought about that. The Rules Committee thought it 
was okay. But the fact of the matter is that that bill was written 
while the Rules Committee was in session. There are 13 of us on the 
Rules Committee. We love the enormous power that we've got. But I don't 
believe any of us ever suspected that the Rules Committee was going to 
supersede all of the committees in the House of Representatives. 
There's been no committee action on any of this.
  In addition, I want to make the point, again, that despite what we 
tried to do, we said, Nobody's talked about this. There's been no 
discussion on this. Let's have an open rule. Let's let not just the 
people on our side but the people on the Republican side who've had no 
input here as well, let's open it up and have a real debate and see 
what's going on here.
  What is going on here? What's going on here, as my colleague points 
out, is a circus of dubious constitutional validity, frankly. Some 
people may say what they're doing is okay. Other people say, Absolutely 
not. We certainly should have had that decision before we got this far. 
What will the Senate do with it? Heavens to Betsy, I don't know. They 
have to have 60 votes over there before they can get to anything. It is 
the only legislative body in the world where 60 is the majority, not 
51, as it is in every other legislature.
  So we've just reached, I think, a new low today. I am very depressed 
by the fact that the Constitution of the United States, which is very 
specific, that the rules of the Congress, which are extremely specific, 
are meaningless here. We have all these people on the committees, 
people with expertise, and wonderful staff. We can draw on resources 
from all over probably the world, not just America. But we've got 
plenty of them here just a block away. All the people we can talk to, 
all the people we can ask, What is the meaning of this? What will it do 
to the economy of the United States of America? Are we on the right 
track? Should we be doing something different? Do we need a debt limit 
law?
  What are we doing? Why can't we have those kinds of discussions in 
this Congress ever again? It's as though if we give them time to think 
about it and everybody has a chance to weigh in on it, then maybe we 
won't be able to move this the way we would like to and play another 
``gotcha'' game, which is really what it comes down to.
  I don't care if The Washington Post loves it. They're probably so 
pleased to see the fact that people believe there's something in the 
fact that Harry Reid said he liked it, which is not anything that's 
been heard here lately, and that they thought they would like it as 
well. But I don't know what it is, and I don't think any of the rest of 
my Members did. And we certainly did not yesterday in the Rules 
Committee. We did not have the benefit of the knowledge of any of the 
other Members of the Congress or the committee process, which could 
have answered the questions for us that came up yesterday.
  In fact, all of us know where this came from. Charles Krauthammer 
wrote a column in The Washington Post. They maybe like that a whole 
lot, as well. That's where this came from. He said, Hey, there's a good 
idea. Instead of going to the committees of the Congress of the United 
States, where people of knowledge are seated, they decided let's just 
throw it together over the weekend at a retreat and we'll take it back 
next week. We're only going to work a couple of days so let's rush it 
through and get it through and maybe by the time we get to 3 months, 
something will have straightened out. Or, more likely, Mr. Speaker, in 
3 months we will have thought of another way that we can kick the can 
down the road.

  Now it's important to note that this is not an extension of debt 
limit. It is a suspension of debt limit. That makes a difference, I 
think, as well, but we didn't get a chance to discuss that part of it 
either. We did away with all notions of regular order. I really thought 
the Plan B, as I'd said earlier--and I don't want anybody to miss 
this--that bill was being written while the Rules Committee was 
meeting. I know that all students of government, all the colleges and 
universities in this country, they're out there teaching people how 
America runs, how carefully and wonderfully put together it was by the 
Founding Fathers, how our Constitution is our guiding light. We just 
celebrated that. Because without doubt, the President's inaugural 
speech, based so closely on the Declaration of Independence and talking 
about the Constitution, made us understand that that is what we are 
here to uphold. And indeed we all held up our hands and swore we would 
uphold it.
  But when it comes to a piece of legislation like this--and this is 
the same as I said last night in the Rules Committee--it's just 
lurching around and jerking around and coming up with any kind of crazy 
gimmick we can think of and making smart remarks. But I will tell you 
that kicking the can down the road for 3 more months is not a solution. 
It gives us some breathing room. But I don't have any reason in the 
world to believe from past performance that the future is going to be 
any clearer for us.
  Until the leaders of the House can start to include the fellow 
Members in the majority--because they have been cut out as well--and 
the minority in the legislative process, the regular order will be 
little more than a dream. And today's bill drops the majority's 
insistence that increasing the debt limit be matched by cuts to 
Medicare or reductions to education funding. That's a step forward. But 
it doesn't answer our questions.
  My Democrat colleagues and I are eager to participate in the 
legislative process for which we came to Washington. And the American 
people are certainly eager--if not eager, maybe desperate would be a 
better word--to see an end to the dysfunction in this Congress. I hope 
that at some point the majority will realize that a completely partisan 
approach, which is what we've

[[Page H231]]

had, is a dead end. That meaningful solutions can only come from 
negotiation and compromise with those on the other side of the aisle 
who do have some good ideas. And when the majority comes to that 
realization, my Democrat colleagues and I will happily join in the 
effort to craft the serious legislative answers our country needs, our 
constituents deserve, and the world expects of us.
  The bill before us today isn't a serious solution--it is a gimmick of 
dubious constitutional validity. The legislation is the product of a 
weekend retreat, and contains all the seriousness one would expect from 
such origins.
  For the last year, the majority has alternatively taken the full 
faith and credit of our Nation hostage and put forth extreme proposals 
that do nothing to reduce our deficit in a balanced way.
  In the process they have done away with any notion of regular order. 
Just weeks ago, a so-called ``Plan B'' to the fiscal cliff was being 
written at the same time the Rules Committee was meeting--thus forcing 
us to debate a bill no one had ever seen.
  Now we meet to debate a bill that failed to go through a single 
committee hearing before landing on the Rules Committee desk yesterday 
afternoon.
  Under the process forged by the majority, the Rules Committee has 
become the place where legislation is unveiled by the majority and 
brought to the floor 24 hours later, with no input from their 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
  This is about as far away from regular order as it gets. Until the 
leaders of the House start including their fellow members of the 
majority and minority in the legislative process, regular order will be 
little more than a dream.
  Mr. Speaker, today's bill drops the majority's insistence that any 
increase in the debt limit be matched by cuts to Medicare or reductions 
to education funding. This is certainly a noteworthy step forward.
  But kicking the can down the road for three months is not the 
solution that the American people deserve. If today's legislation had 
been crafted in the halls of Congress, with input from both sides of 
the aisle, I believe that we could be voting on a serious measure to 
prevent a debt-limit crisis and reduce our deficit starting today.
  My Democratic colleagues and I are eager to participate in the 
legislative process, and the American people are eager to see an end to 
the dysfunction in Congress.
  I hope that at some point the majority will realize that a completely 
partisan approach is a dead end. Meaningful solutions can only come 
from negotiation and compromise with those on the other side of the 
aisle.
  When the majority comes to that realization, my Democratic colleagues 
and I will happily join in the effort to craft the serious legislative 
answers that our country needs and our constituents deserve.

                              {time}  0950

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman, the ranking 
member of the committee, who was very faithful and sat through not only 
the hearing yesterday, but offered her feedback to our speakers who 
came to the Rules Committee representing the House Administration 
Committee and representing the Ways and Means Committee. I thought that 
her questions and her tone were very appropriate.
  I think that yesterday the two Republican lead Representatives--the 
gentlewoman from Michigan, Candice Miller, representing the House 
Administration Committee; and the gentleman from the Ways and Means 
Committee, Mr. Ryan--adequately not only spoke about, Mr. Speaker, a 
five-page bill--five pages that we could not only understand, but offer 
the idea, regardless of who came up with the idea, that represents what 
I hope will be and believe will be more than 218 votes and I think will 
be bipartisan. These ideas don't just belong to somebody and we can't 
share them--they belong to the American people--about a way to move 
forward, avoiding conflict, working together, coming up with ideas that 
you can express with great confidence that we believe will work.
  Yesterday, during the hearing, we also had some thoughtful 
conversation.
  I'd like to yield 5 minutes to the Rules Committee designee to 
Chairman Ryan and the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Woodall).
  Mr. WOODALL. I thank my chairman for yielding.
  I used to come to this podium, Mr. Speaker, and say I'm just a House 
freshman, but this is what I think about things. I'm now a House 
sophomore. It's been 2 years and 1 month since I arrived here; and if 
you told me 2 years ago when I arrived that we were going to be 
bringing five-page pieces of legislation to this floor for up-or-down 
votes by this body, I wouldn't have believed it because I've watched 
the way this House has operated for over a decade.
  I see these bills--and Mr. Speaker, you've seen them too--these bills 
that folks have to carry down here on a dolly, those bills that they 
drop them down here on the rostrum with just a thump. Folks can't read 
those bills; folks can't analyze those bills; folks can't digest those 
bills. But this one that we have today deals with an incredibly 
complicated topic, the debt ceiling, an incredibly controversial 
topic--how it is that the House and the Senate get their business 
done--and yet we bring it in five pages that every Member of this body 
has had a chance to read and digest, every Member of this body.
  We had a hearing on it in the Rules Committee yesterday. And here on 
the floor today we're going to debate this bill not just with one 
committee of jurisdiction, with the Ways and Means Committee getting 
time, but with two committees of jurisdiction, the Ways and Means 
Committee getting time and the House Administration Committee getting 
time.
  You know, it's unusual, Mr. Speaker, that we have a bill that the 
Speaker of the House has decided to bring forward, that the majority 
leader of the Senate has praised the Speaker for bringing forward, and 
that the White House has said it doesn't have any objection to. That's 
unusual. Candidly, it makes me a little suspicious. That's the way it's 
been around here. I think my colleagues on the Rules Committee would 
agree. So often we get so used to the controversy that if we can't 
fight about something, we start to wonder what's wrong, what's wrong 
that we can't fight about something. I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, we're 
going to have that opportunity to fight. We don't have that roadmap 
yet. Of course, the House has laid out its budget roadmap year after 
year after year after year. Certainly, the 2 years I've been here, the 
House has done its job--much to the credit of my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle--and passed a budget. This year, rumor has it the 
Senate is going to do the same thing.
  This bill certainly puts an incentive in place for both the House and 
the Senate to get their job done, but how is it that we're going to 
tackle those tough decisions that my friend from New York, the ranking 
member of the Rules Committee, talked about, those really difficult 
financial decisions, talking about those obligations we have in the 
future that we have absolutely no plan or means to pay for. How are we 
going to grapple with those decisions? Well, I'll tell you, I wish we 
had gotten a big deal in the debt ceiling debate of August of 2011. We 
got a step in the right direction, but we didn't get it all done. I 
wish we had gotten it in the Joint Select Committee. We didn't get it 
done. I wish we had gotten it in the fiscal cliff debate of last year. 
We didn't get it done.
  But I believe--maybe it's just a hope, Mr. Speaker--but I believe 
that if the Senate has the courage to lay out its path for America--its 
path for America's budget and dealing with America's obligations--and 
if the House has the courage to lay out its vision for America, its 
vision of dealing with America's obligations, that we're going to find 
that opportunity to come together to make those decisions that have to 
happen.

  Now, I hope I'm not speaking out of school, Mr. Speaker, but I had a 
chance for some constituents in town--some of my business leaders, some 
of the great entrepreneurs from my district, they're in town. I took 
them by to meet with Speaker John Boehner. I'll tell you, I come from 
one of the most conservative districts in the United States of America; 
Speaker John Boehner is not always the most popular name in my 
district. But I brought them by to meet him because I wanted them to 
hear from him directly and he said this to them, he said: We have real 
opportunities in divided government, real opportunities to come 
together and do the big things that matter; that only in divided 
government can you bring together the best ideas from both sides and 
put everybody's fingerprint and stamp of approval on them and do

[[Page H232]]

those things that really make a difference for America. And my goal is 
to do those things while I'm leading this, the people's House.
  I take him at his word, Mr. Speaker. And if giving this 90-day 
extension so that budgets can be passed gives him that opportunity, 
I'll do it.
  A colleague of mine yesterday said, ``That stuck with me.'' He said, 
``I've had people I respect a whole lot less ask me for a whole lot 
more.''
  I have great respect for our Budget Committee chairman, Paul Ryan. I 
have great respect for our Rules Committee chairman, Pete Sessions. I 
have great respect for the Speaker of the House. If they tell me 
another 90 days is going to give us that opportunity to do those big 
things I think we on both sides of the aisle want to do, I'm there.
  I support this resolution, Mr. Speaker, and I hope folks will support 
the underlying bill.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to tell the gentleman from Georgia that I appreciate his many, 
many, many, many years working here in Washington, not only as a Member 
of Congress, but his many years as a congressional aide. So you have a 
perspective here based on many, many years of service in Washington. 
But I would just say that if someone were to tell me that the 
Republican leadership were to bring yet another closed rule to the 
floor, I'm sad to say that I'd respond: I'm not surprised.
  This is a closed rule. This is a bill--whether it's five pages or a 
hundred pages, it doesn't make any difference--that did not come out of 
a committee process. The Ways and Means Committee didn't hold hearings 
or a markup. The House Administration Committee didn't hold hearings or 
a markup. This did, as my colleague from New York said, basically come 
out of your retreat, and you hand a bill to all of us here. What's even 
more startling is that you do not allow anybody, Democrats or 
Republicans, to amend it. Completely closed. Completely closed.
  Look, I would say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--
especially the freshmen who campaigned on the platform of openness and 
transparency--you vote for this rule, you're the problem. You're the 
problem if you vote for this rule. So I would again urge my colleagues, 
just on the process alone, this is not the way that we should proceed.
  The other thing I would remind my friends who are saying that somehow 
this is going to produce a result, this doesn't require a result. This 
requires the House to once again pass its budget--which, as we all know 
from last year's experience, represents the extreme of the extreme; I 
mean, it's irreconcilable with the Senate--and the Senate can pass 
whatever they want, but it doesn't require a finished product. What the 
American people want is a finished product, not a gimmick to kick the 
can down the road for 3 months. Yeah, everybody is happy we're not 
going to default today. But 3 months, that's it? I mean, I think we can 
do a heck of a lot better than this.
  At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the distinguished 
ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
  (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker and Members of the 
House, at the end of the day when we vote today, we will simply be 
voting to kick the can down the road--which every Member of this House 
has told their constituents they no longer wanted to do--but we will 
kick the can down the road on the question of the debt limit of the 
United States and whether or not the full faith and credit of the 
United States will stand behind the bills that we owe the rest of the 
world, the businesses and our companies, individuals, people's 
retirement plans. That's all this bill does. Under some sort of 
camouflage about withholding pay, what have you, they kick the can down 
the road.
  You know, Americans are starting to realize that the economy is 
starting to recover after the devastation of the housing scandals, of 
the Wall Street scandals. Small businesses are starting to hire; 
spending over Christmas was reasonably good; the stock market is at a 
5-year high; the housing market is coming back; builders are in fact 
building new homes because of the demand in housing.

                              {time}  1000

  All of a sudden, enter the Congress of the United States and it says 
that we're going to put the full faith and credit of the United States 
of America on a 90-day leash. We're going to take the greatest economy 
in the greatest country with the greatest responsibility in the world 
and we're going to put them on a 90-day leash.
  How does a great country respond on a 90-day leash? We know how it 
responded last time the world saw this happen. We got downgraded in the 
credit rating. That drove up the borrowing cost of the United States. 
That drove up the borrowing cost of corporations. That drove up the 
borrowing cost of counties and cities--the counties and the cities that 
we represent. And we're told again that should we falter on the credit 
debt of the United States, that we can expect a downgrade and we can 
expect a further downgrade in cities and counties all over the country, 
and somehow we're supposed to believe that this is a good plan.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. What this plan does is hold the jobs 
of America's families and working people all across this country 
hostage. It holds them hostage to the passage of this legislation, and 
it holds them hostage 90 days from now.
  This bill says if you don't vote for the Ryan budget--because we know 
the votes are on the other side of the aisle to pass the Ryan budget--
then we go back to putting the credit of the United States at risk. The 
last time the American people looked at the Ryan budget they rejected 
it overwhelmingly. Do you remember the election of November, just a 
couple of months ago? They rejected those cuts in Medicare, those cuts 
in Medicaid, and the tax cuts for the wealthy.
  Yet all of this is being put back on the table by holding the debt 
limit hostage, holding the credit hostage, and holding American jobs 
hostage. So if you don't vote for that budget, then they get to play 
with the debt limit again. They get to play with the debt limit again.
  We have got big lifts to make between now and then, folks. We have 
sequestration, we have tax reform, and we have a budget to write. Let's 
just get down to business and do it. Just do it. Don't play with the 
credit of this country. Don't play with people's pension plans. Don't 
play with the interest rates that corporations have to pay to borrow. 
Don't play with the interest rates that your local municipalities have 
to pay to borrow for projects in their districts.
  This has got to stop. If you really believe that America is a great 
country, if you really believe that we're an international power, then 
we ought to start acting like one, and the Congress of the United 
States ought to start acting like it. And 90-day extensions on the 
creditworthiness of the United States is not the picture you paint when 
you're an international power.
  It has to stop. It has to stop. We cannot continue to go through this 
and put all of this at risk and put this recovery that is, in fact, 
happening at risk because of the actions of the majority here in this 
House, once again, to fool with the credit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Do you want to shut down the 
government? Have at it. I was here when it happened before. You'll find 
all your constituents up close and personal. You'll get to know them. 
That's a lot different. That's a lot different action. You want to go 
off with sequestration? You don't like the cuts that come up with its 
substitute? Fine. We voted for sequestration. You told the American 
people with your votes you were prepared to have sequestration if we 
didn't do the job. So you've got a lot of tough votes to make. Don't 
try to avoid them by holding the creditworthiness of the United States 
at risk.

[[Page H233]]

  It has got to stop, and it should stop today on the floor of the 
House of Representatives. We should say to the world that we are 
prepared to have this country pay the bills. The deficits have been 
incurred by our actions. It has got to stop today with a ``no'' vote 
against this legislation.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, as always, this floor is open to people 
who have ideas. I'd like to say to the American people and to my 
colleagues that are listening that the Republican leadership has 
decided to bring this bill to the floor today. We have no clue exactly 
what date the United States actually needs to make sure that we pass 
this bill to avoid not paying our bills. The Secretary of the Treasury 
is in active notification with our leadership and the leadership of the 
Senate and perhaps all Members because of his openness to speak about 
this in the press.
  We don't know when that day is, and because we don't know when that 
day is, that's a good reason to begin working on ideas to see whether 
we can even pass this bill. I think we're going to. I think it's going 
to be a bipartisan bill. I don't think everybody necessarily has the 
same concerns that the gentleman from California spoke of, but what 
we're trying to do is work together. Conservative Republicans in our 
party do support this bill. I support this bill as a conservative 
Republican. Our Speaker, as a conservative Republican, supports this 
bill.
  What it's about is avoiding the problems of chaos, avoiding the 
problems of doing things at the last minute, avoiding the problems of 
not addressing the issue, and avoiding the problems where the 
marketplace loses confidence in what we're doing.
  Chairman Paul Ryan, chairman of our Budget Committee, a bright young 
leader for our country, forthrightly brought this idea to our 
conference and has sold it. It's the right thing to do. We are trying 
to do here today the right thing, talking with the American people, 
letting people see that we're moving forward to avoid conflict and 
avoid problems.
  So it was accomplished with this 5-page bill, a 5-page bill which we 
will then have two committee chairmen, Paul Ryan representing the Ways 
and Means committee, perhaps Dave Camp, the chairman of the committee, 
and Candice Miller of House Administration, work through meticulous, 
thoughtful ideas that really are not difficult to get because it's a 5-
page bill.
  We think we're doing the right thing, we think we've got the votes, 
and we think it's going to provide this country and the Senate and this 
administration, us all working together, the right thing. So if you 
want to oppose it, I get that. I can understand the positions held. But 
passing the bill will be a positive thing. It will offer working-
together relationships with the Senate. It is supported and not opposed 
by the President, and I think that gives us an opportunity to put a 
good foot forward in this new Congress rather than one where we're 
fighting, disagreeing, and can't get our act together.
  The American people demand that we get things done. The American 
people are asking, hey, when possible, can you guys work together? Yes, 
we can. Today is the day where we can say, Mr. Speaker, people from 
Nebraska, people from Texas, people from Ohio, people from all over 
this country, can you work together? We're trying to find a way, and 
I'm proud of that. And with great respect to anybody who would disagree 
with that, we're going to stand behind our product today with a money-
back guarantee--a money-back guarantee: if we don't get our job done, 
we're not going to take the pay.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Let's be clear. 
This House is not open to new ideas. If it was, we would not be coming 
to the floor with a bill that is a completely closed rule so that 
Members cannot offer their ideas in the form of amendments.
  Secondly, their gimmick even has a gimmick to it. They say that if 
the Senate doesn't act or the House doesn't act on a budget, they don't 
get paid. Really what they do is they get paid at the end of the year. 
So their pay is not taken away.
  This is show business. Instead of show business and instead of 
gimmicks, we ought to be coming to the House floor in a bipartisan way 
trying to figure out how to solve some of these budgetary problems. I 
regret very much that this is the best we can do, kicking the can down 
the road for 3 months.
  Mr. Speaker, at this point, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Bera).

                              {time}  1010

  Mr. BERA of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address Congress' 
failure to pass a responsible budget.
  As an original cosponsor of H.R. 310, the standalone and original No 
Budget, No Pay Act, I'm pleased to see the 113th Congress begin to 
address our core obligations to pass a responsible budget that not only 
honors the promises that we have made to our parents and grandparents, 
but also secures a prosperous future for our children and 
grandchildren.
  We can do this, but we must do so in a bipartisan way. The great 
Speaker of the House, the Honorable Tip O'Neill, was able to work with 
President Ronald Reagan to revamp our Tax Code and strengthen Social 
Security. The Honorable Speaker Newt Gingrich was able to work with 
President Bill Clinton to not only balance our budget, but to create a 
budget surplus.
  We can do this, but we must do so in a bipartisan fashion, taking the 
best ideas from both sides of the aisle, finding common ground, and 
moving forward.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman very much from Massachusetts, 
and I thank my friend from Texas.
  I would hope that all of us would commit to doing our job. And I know 
that my good friend recognizes that the Constitution in article I, 
section 8, requires the Congress to have the power to collect taxes and 
duties and to pay the debts, but also to be concerned about the general 
welfare.
  Really what the administration says is that they support a long-term 
increase in the debt ceiling. And the reason why the people of the 
United States have not heard of this controversy is because the normal 
course of business constitutionally is for the Congress to consult with 
the Treasury, the Treasury to consult with the Congress, and the debt 
ceiling is raised in a manner that protects the general welfare of the 
American people.
  But now we have a proposal that is driven by polling and 
brinksmanship. This is not the way to run a country. I heard a comedian 
some years ago say, What a great country. We are a great country. I 
love America. The Constitution emphasizes the greatness of this Nation, 
but we don't play politics with something that is the ordinary course 
of business.
  Spending cuts is the responsible way to govern, but it is to govern 
in a way that we sit at the table of reconciliation and we don't break 
the backs of seniors who utilize Medicare and Social Security and 
veterans benefits. What we do is we sit at the table and we understand 
how to deal with the oncoming issue of the deficit. How do we do that? 
We do it with growth. But the Constitution has nothing in here that 
suggests, under this article, that we are to do brinksmanship and do 2 
weeks or 3 weeks or to May. What happens in May, a crisis where we 
can't pay our military? The debt ceiling is paying the debt, and I am 
troubled by the fact that we would use this tactic.
  I want bipartisanship. In fact, someone who raises issues about the 
vulnerable, like myself, has worked with my Republican friends. I look 
forward to do it. I'm an American. I believe in the Constitution, but 
you do not raise the debt ceiling in increments. The administration 
says, We won't stop it, but we want a long-term increase so that we can 
begin the rebuilding of this Nation.
  Growth, the Constitution, that's what we should be talking about, 
making America better.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentlewoman from Houston, Texas, is absolutely correct. We do 
need long-term growth of our economy. We need jobs. We need job 
creation. We need to be able to reduce the debt of this country.
  The President is well aware, we're well aware here in Congress that 
each

[[Page H234]]

of the years that the President has been our President he increased 
spending. He wants a massive tax increase, and we have a deficit. We 
have a deficit of $1.3 trillion each of these years.
  We're trying to work together. We're trying to, as the President said 
as he addressed a luncheon just an hour after he was sworn in, that he 
wants to learn from some of the things that he's done and he wants to 
do better. Some of doing that better is a chance to perhaps reassess: 
Did I do the right thing the first time? Did I do the right thing when 
I continue to raise taxes and demand that we do that?
  Higher taxes diminish jobs and opportunity and growth in this 
country, and that's why we are trying to suggest openly, Mr. President, 
let's grow some jobs. Let's do the things I think that are more in line 
with what President George W. Bush did, who is referred to as No. 43 in 
Dallas, Texas. No. 43 had 60 straight months of economic growth, with 
the underpinning of reducing taxes so that Americans would go and work 
harder and see the incentive for creating jobs and would want to buy 
into the philosophy that the harder that we work, our country benefits. 
The underpinnings of Social Security, of Medicare, of Medicaid, systems 
that are very important to our country; reducing the number of people 
who have to receive government assistance is what happens when you have 
job growth; protecting the long-term interests of this country and 
growing the American Dream.
  The gentlewoman from Houston is absolutely correct. And the 
methodology towards getting there is not higher taxes, and it is not 
higher spending. It is giving more freedom and opportunity. It is 
having a reduced size of government, not a bigger government. It is 
giving people an opportunity to have fewer rules and regulations, not 
more rules and regulations.
  So the process that the Republican Party believes in deeply is the 
rights of individuals, freedom and opportunity, and reducing the size 
of government, which gives more people opportunities to empower their 
freedom and opportunity for their American Dream.
  It's part of what we're doing here today. I think we believe and I 
think it works. Look at Texas and you will see where we have job 
growth, job creation, a healthier economy than other places in the 
country, and an opportunity to say we want more of it for all of 
America.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). The gentleman from Massachusetts 
has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I doubt very much that anyone in America is 
sitting around today saying, I hope Congress sets up another fiscal 
cliff; I hope they put us in a position again where no one knows what's 
going to happen the next couple of months.
  We ought to listen, but that's what we are doing with this bill. We 
should listen to the President who said this:

       Unfortunately, Congress consistently brings the government 
     to the edge of default before facing its responsibility. This 
     brinksmanship threatens the holders of government bonds, 
     those who rely on Social Security and veterans benefits. 
     Interest rates would skyrocket, instability would occur in 
     financial markets, and the Federal deficit would soar. The 
     United States has a special responsibility to itself and the 
     world to meet its obligations.

  We should listen to this President.
  Ronald Reagan said this in 1986. In 1986, the Congress listened to 
him, extended the debt ceiling, and acted responsibly. So should we. 
This legislation sets up another fiscal cliff, another financial 
nightmare, another problem for the American people that we should 
avoid.
  I urge all Members to vote ``no.''
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, as I 
have no additional speakers.
  Mr. McGOVERN. We have a gimmick before us that withholds pay if we 
don't pass a budget, but not if you don't get a deal. It doesn't matter 
whether the budget is irreconcilable or partisan. Here is the other 
gimmick. It doesn't really withhold anybody's pay. It just delays when 
you get the check.
  The problem is not the United States Senate, I want to tell my 
friends. It is my friends on the other side of the aisle who do not 
want a deal, who want instead to basically annihilate and eviscerate 
the public sector. I say to my friends, if you want to balance the 
budget, pay for your wars, pay for your tax cuts, pay for your 
giveaways to the very wealthy in this country. What is before us is not 
a solution.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' to not kick the can down the 
road, to deal with the problems as we see them right now. And I also 
urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, those especially who 
call for transparency, vote ``no'' on this closed rule. This is a 
closed rule. Nobody has an opportunity to offer any other ideas. This 
is not the way we should be dealing with budget issues. Vote ``no'' on 
this closed rule.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1020

  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I appreciate my colleagues--the gentleman, Mr. McGovern; the ranking 
member of the committee, Ms. Slaughter; and those Democrat Members who 
came down to express themselves. I also appreciate the Republicans who 
came down to talk about this important issue.
  Mr. Speaker, what we're doing is debating a bill, H.R. 325, that 
ensures that the obligations of the United States are taken care of. 
We're not trying to stand in the way. Even the United States Senate 
majority leader said, Great job, House. Thank you very much. We can 
work with this bill. We can work with you.
  Members of my party have said we think this is a responsible way to 
begin the process to avoid having to make difficult decisions at the 
very end. We've laid out a process. Yesterday, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin, our young leader, Paul Ryan, who is the chairman of the 
House Budget Committee, was asked in testimony, Will you produce your 
end of the bargain that is in here? Will you take care of your part 
with the knowledge that we're counting on that?
  The Senate has said, as to their part of the bargain, whether they 
pass this bill or not, they can step up to the responsibility. Those 
leaders have said, Yes, we think we can.
  It's not perfect. By golly, I'm not sure what ``perfect'' is anymore 
because ``perfect'' may not get passed in this House, but the fair and 
proper way to handle things is so the American people have confidence 
in what we're doing, so the markets have confidence in what we're 
doing, and so the budget is handled. All of these things are placed in 
a systematic order so that our Members, the Members of this body, can 
go home and communicate with people as to here is what we think is 
going to happen next.
  Avoiding problems is what Speaker Boehner and our great majority 
leader, Eric Cantor, are trying to do. They are bringing legislation to 
this floor that adequately begins the process before we get in trouble. 
It's a 5-page bill. It's ordered up exactly as the doctor would have 
wanted--in English, where you can understand it, where it doesn't take 
a legal degree or for you to have to be in the House for 30 years to 
figure out what we're trying to say.
  What we're trying to say is right here, and that is for the House and 
the Senate to work together. We do a budget. We lay out to the American 
people what we're trying to do. We work with the President, and we tell 
this administration and the government what we're doing. The American 
people can have confidence in this.
  I support this. In fact, as chairman of the Rules Committee, I am 
asking for our Members and all Members of this body to please see this 
as a responsible way to deal with the problems that are immediately in 
front of us but before it becomes a crisis, before it becomes something 
that we cannot deal with as effectively, and bringing the American 
people along.
  I also want to thank the President of the United States, President 
Obama, because President Obama said he could live with this.
  I want to congratulate Senator Harry Reid, the Senate majority 
leader. Yes, I'll say that here on the floor because he says it's the 
right thing to

[[Page H235]]

do, and thank you for passing us a clean bill that will give them the 
authority and the responsibility to do what they really want to do--not 
playing hardball, not throwing rocks. As a matter of fact, Senator 
Harry Reid said, A clean bill--a good thing. Now it's up to them. It's 
up to them to take up their activities that are for us, and it's up to 
this House of Representatives.
  So, as we finish this, Paul Ryan, the young leader of the Ways and 
Means Committee, Dave Camp, and others will be here debating these 
ideas. Immediately after that, you will see that Candice Miller, the 
House Administration chairwoman, will come and talk with this House and 
the American people about the responsibility that she has to ensure 
that what we do is correct and proper. Then this body will have a 
chance to vote ``yes'' or ``no,'' and that will be an authority and a 
responsibility once again for Paul Ryan, as the chairman of our Budget 
Committee, and for those members of the committee, Republicans and 
Democrats, to do their work, get it done and to produce a bill. We will 
then comply, but if we don't: no work, no pay. That's something the 
American people can understand. It's simple. It goes back to 1607: no 
work, no food.
  Members of Congress need to understand we've got to get our job done, 
so I'm proud of what we're doing here today. I can stand behind this 
product and proudly say that I think this will pass the smell test of 
the American people and that it's something they can understand and 
something they will look forward to. Watch us as we do our job.
  I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question 
on the resolution.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, isn't it true that no matter what happens 
with this bill that Members will get paid no matter what?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair cannot respond to that. It is not 
a proper parliamentary inquiry.
  The question is on ordering the previous question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of House Resolution 39, if 
ordered, and approval of the Journal, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 232, 
nays 193, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 26]

                               YEAS--232

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peters (CA)
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--193

     Andrews
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Cardenas
     DeLauro
     Huffman
     Rohrabacher
     Rush
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1050

  Messrs. HOLT and RUIZ changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. BACHUS, WILSON of South Carolina, and WHITFIELD changed their 
vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 234, 
noes 190, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 27]

                               AYES--234

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy

[[Page H236]]


     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Maffei
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--190

     Andrews
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Cardenas
     Davis, Danny
     DeLauro
     Rush
     Vargas
     Webster (FL)
     Young (AK)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1059

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 27, I was 
unavoidably detained off of the House floor. Therefore, I was unable to 
cast my vote on H. Res. 39 providing for consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 325). Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

                          ____________________