Congressional Record, Volume 159 Issue 8 (Wednesday, January 23, 2013)

[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

[[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.''

____________________