[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 485-499]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     NO BUDGET, NO PAY ACT OF 2013

  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 39, I call up 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, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 39, the 
amendment printed in House Report 113-2 is considered adopted, and the 
bill, as amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                                H.R. 325

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``No Budget, No Pay Act of 
     2013''.

     SEC. 2. TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DEBT CEILING.

       (a) Suspension.--Section 3101(b) of title 31, United States 
     Code, shall not apply for the period beginning on the date of 
     the enactment of this Act and ending on May 18, 2013.
       (b) Special Rule Relating to Obligations Issued During 
     Suspension Period.--Effective May 19, 2013, the limitation in 
     section 3101(b) of title 31, United States Code, as increased 
     by section 3101A of such title, is increased to the extent 
     that--
       (1) the face amount of obligations issued under chapter 31 
     of such title and the face amount of obligations whose 
     principal and interest are guaranteed by the United States 
     Government (except guaranteed obligations held by the 
     Secretary of the Treasury) outstanding on May 19, 2013, 
     exceeds
       (2) the face amount of such obligations outstanding on the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.

     An obligation shall not be taken into account under paragraph 
     (1) unless the issuance of such obligation was necessary to 
     fund a commitment incurred by the Federal Government that 
     required payment before May 19, 2013.

     SEC. 3. HOLDING SALARIES OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN ESCROW 
                   UPON FAILURE TO AGREE TO BUDGET RESOLUTION.

       (a) Holding Salaries in Escrow.--
       (1) In general.--If by April 15, 2013, a House of Congress 
     has not agreed to a concurrent resolution on the budget for 
     fiscal year 2014 pursuant to section 301 of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974, during the period described in paragraph 
     (2) the payroll administrator of that House of Congress shall 
     deposit in an escrow account all payments otherwise required 
     to be made during such period for the compensation of Members 
     of Congress who serve in that House of Congress, and shall 
     release such payments to such Members only upon the 
     expiration of such period.
       (2) Period described.--With respect to a House of Congress, 
     the period described in this paragraph is the period which 
     begins on April 16, 2013, and ends on the earlier of--
       (A) the day on which the House of Congress agrees to a 
     concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2014 
     pursuant to section 301 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974; or
       (B) the last day of the One Hundred Thirteenth Congress.
       (3) Withholding and remittance of amounts from payments 
     held in escrow.--The payroll administrator shall provide for 
     the same withholding and remittance with respect to a payment 
     deposited in an escrow account under paragraph (1) that would 
     apply to the payment if the payment were not subject to 
     paragraph (1).
       (4) Release of amounts at end of the congress.--In order to 
     ensure that this section is carried out in a manner that 
     shall not vary the compensation of Senators or 
     Representatives in violation of the twenty-seventh article of 
     amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the 
     payroll administrator of a House of Congress shall release 
     for payments to Members of that House of Congress any amounts 
     remaining in any escrow account under this section on the 
     last day of the One Hundred Thirteenth Congress.
       (5) Role of secretary of the treasury.--The Secretary of 
     the Treasury shall provide the payroll administrators of the 
     Houses of Congress with such assistance as may be necessary 
     to enable the payroll administrators to carry out this 
     section.
       (b) Treatment of Delegates as Members.--In this section, 
     the term ``Member'' includes a Delegate or Resident 
     Commissioner to the Congress.
       (c) Payroll Administrator Defined.--In this section, the 
     ``payroll administrator'' of a House of Congress means--
       (1) in the case of the House of Representatives, the Chief 
     Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives, or an 
     employee of the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer 
     who is designated by the Chief Administrative Officer to 
     carry out this section; and
       (2) in the case of the Senate, the Secretary of the Senate, 
     or an employee of the Office of the Secretary of the Senate 
     who is designated by the Secretary to carry out this section.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Debate shall not exceed 1 hour 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.
  The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) and the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin) each will control 20 minutes. The gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Mrs. Miller) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brady) 
each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp).


                             General Leave

  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 
5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to 
include extraneous material on H.R. 325.

[[Page 486]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 325, the No 
Budget, No Pay Act of 2013. This legislation directs Members of the 
House and Senate to adopt a budget resolution by April 15, 2013. If 
either body does not adopt a budget resolution by April 15, 2013, 
Members of that body will have their pay withheld until they pass a 
budget. It's simple: no budget, no pay. The American people understand 
that they don't get paid if they don't do their job, and neither should 
Members of Congress.
  In addition, to ensure the complete and timely payment of the 
obligations of the U.S. Government, this legislation allows Treasury to 
issue debt between the date of enactment and May 18, 2013. However, 
Treasury may only issue enough debt necessary to pay bills coming due 
before May 18. I want to be perfectly clear on this point: this bill 
does not allow Treasury to run up an unlimited amount of debt between 
now and May 18.
  The debt authorized under this bill must be tied to bills coming due 
during that timeframe. Further, on May 19, a new debt limit is 
automatically established.
  So that's what this bill does. The larger question is, why are we 
even talking about the debt and debt limit? Our Nation's debt is not 
just some abstract number. It has a direct impact on American families. 
During the President's fiscal commission, the Simpson-Bowles 
Commission, we heard nonpartisan testimony that when the debt is this 
large in comparison to the economy, it costs the country the equivalent 
of about 1 million jobs. Think about that. If Washington got its debt 
and spending under control, then 1 million more Americans would be 
working today.
  And if that wasn't sobering enough, Fitch Ratings recently warned 
that the failure to come up with a plan for reducing our debt would 
likely still result in a downgrade of the U.S. credit rating. A lower 
credit rating is sure to mean higher interest rates. That means higher 
credit card payments, higher car payments, higher student loans, and 
certainly higher mortgage payments.
  Despite these nonpartisan warnings, the Democrat-controlled Senate 
has not produced a budget in more than 1,300 days. That's 4 years 
without a budget. How can we begin to get our debt under control when 
Democrats won't even produce a budget? This bill is the first step in 
forcing Democrats to put forward a budget so we can start holding 
Washington accountable for its out-of-control spending.
  Every day, American families have to make decisions about their 
household finances. They have to adjust their spending to cover a whole 
host of things: groceries, student loan payments, braces for children, 
and a replacement for that aging refrigerator. Of course, they can't 
buy everything they want. Every day, they have to make tough choices.
  It's time for Congress--the House and the Senate--to make some tough 
choices. To be honest, Mr. Speaker, this isn't a tough choice where I 
come from. Where I grew up, if you didn't do your job, you didn't get 
paid. It's time for Congress to start living with the same facts of 
life everyone else in America has to live with. I support the No 
Budget, No Pay Act because it brings back a bit of accountability and 
common sense to Washington. I urge my colleagues to join me in passing 
this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I shall consume.
  This Republican bill is not a change in policy. It's a change in 
tactics. House Republicans continue to play with economic fire. They're 
playing political games with the debt ceiling, and that undermines 
certainty.
  Yesterday, economist Simon Johnson of MIT testified before our 
committee saying that a short-term increase would only extend 
uncertainty. He said:

       You will continue to undermine the private sector. You will 
     continue to delay investment and to reduce employment 
     relative to what it would be otherwise.

  Let's, for a second, remember history, the last time the House 
Republicans played political games with the debt ceiling. In August 
2011, our economy produced the lowest job growth in 3 years. During 
that 2-month period, the Dow Jones plummeted 2,000 points, including 
one of its worst single-day drops in history--635 points on August 8. 
S&P downgraded the U.S. credit rating for the first time in history.
  Leading Republicans in June, 2011, criticized the notion of a short-
term debt ceiling increase as providing a lack of certainty. The 
majority leader said:

       We feel very strongly that one of the reasons why we 
     continue to see an ailing economy is that people have very 
     little confidence, have very little certainty in terms of 
     where we are headed.

  Our Ways and Means chairman echoed that feeling only days later 
saying about the prospect of a short-term debt ceiling increase, It 
does not give you certainty.
  This bill does not give certainty, but uncertainty.
  The action we took New Year's Day to avoid the fiscal cliff brought 
our total deficit reduction over the past 2 years to $2.5 trillion. 
What's more, it set the stage for future further balanced agreements 
that include both spending cuts and new revenue. We should proceed with 
that effort, not plunge into further uncertainty.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1120

  Mr. CAMP. I yield myself 15 seconds just to say that Standard & 
Poor's downgraded the U.S. credit rating on August 5, after the Budget 
Control Act was passed. In doing so:

       The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal 
     consolidation plan that Congress and the administration 
     recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be 
     necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term debt 
     dynamics.

  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member 
of the Ways and Means Committee and chairman of the House Budget 
Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, you know what we know with certainty? We know with 
certainty that a debt crisis is coming to America. This is not a 
question of if; it's a question of when.
  What is a debt crisis? It means we can't keep living beyond our 
means. It means we can't keep borrowing from our children's future. Our 
generation of Americans, we're being selfish. We are taking from the 
next generation their future.
  We have a moral obligation to fix that. If we have a debt crisis, 
those who get hurt the first and the worst are those who need 
government the most: our seniors, the poor, the people living on the 
safety net, that's who gets hurt in a debt crisis. We have an 
obligation to do something about this.
  What does this bill do? This bill simply says: Congress do your job.
  When I grew up in Wisconsin, if you had a job and you did the work, 
then you got paid. If you didn't do the work you didn't get paid. It's 
that simple. Here's the point. We have a law, and it's called the 
Budget Control Act. It requires that Congress pass a budget by April 
15. All we're saying is: Congress, follow the law. Do your work. 
Budget.
  The reason for this extension is so that we can have the debate we 
need to have. It's been a one-sided debate. The House of 
Representatives has passed budgets. The other body, the Senate, hasn't 
passed a budget for almost 4 years. We owe our constituents more than 
that. We owe them solutions. When both parties put their solutions on 
the table, then we can have a good and clear debate about how to solve 
the problem. The problem is not going away no matter how much we wish 
it away. The problem of debt, of deficits, of a debt crisis is here.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.

[[Page 487]]


  Mr. CAMP. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. We owe it to our children and our 
grandchildren and we owe it to our constituents to fix this.
  This isn't a Republican or Democrat thing. This is a math thing. And 
the math is vicious, and it's hurting our country, and it's hurting the 
next generation, and it's hurting our economy. The sooner we can solve 
this problem, the better off everybody is going to be. That's why this 
needs to pass.
  Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 2 minutes to the ranking member of the Budget 
Committee, Mr. Van Hollen.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan.
  This resolution contains some good news, but lots of bad news for the 
American people. The good news is that our congressional Republican 
colleagues have finally recognized that America must pay its bills and 
meet its financial obligations without condition. The bad news is they 
only want to do that for 3 months. Just read the title: To ensure the 
complete and timely payment of the obligations of the United States 
Government until May 19.
  If it's a good idea to maintain the obligations of the U.S. 
Government between now and May 19, it sure is a good idea to make sure 
that we meet the obligations of the U.S. Government beyond that. And by 
setting up what amounts to another fiscal cliff, all our Republican 
colleagues are doing is prolonging economic uncertainty.
  For the last 2 years, we've heard from our Republican colleagues that 
economic uncertainty is bad for the economy. Guess what? It is. Yet 
that's exactly what you're doing, another big dose of economic 
uncertainty. This is a political effort simply to increase their 
negotiating strategy leverage 3 months from now at the expense of jobs 
in the economy and the American people.
  How do we know it's at the expense of jobs in the economy? Because we 
saw what happened in August of 2011. As the ranking member of the Ways 
and Means Committee said, it was the worst month in terms of jobs. We 
saw our credit rating downgraded, and both GAO and the Bipartisan 
Policy Center have said it cost the taxpayers over $1 billion. So 
that's all we're doing right now, another dose of uncertainty.
  To my friend and colleague, the chairman of the Budget Committee, 
yes, we need budgets; yes, we need to reduce our long-term deficits. 
That's never been the issue. The issue is how. We believe we've got to 
make targeted cuts in reforms, but we also believe we need to eliminate 
a lot of the tax breaks and loopholes that we heard a lot from our 
colleagues about in order to reduce the deficit in a balanced way. If 
you don't do that, you sock it to everybody else in the country.
  Let's pass a balanced approach to reducing our deficit, and not one 
that takes it out at the expense of our kids and our seniors.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just say that we've already increased the debt limit over $5 
trillion in the Obama administration. That's an almost 50 percent 
increase in the debt limit.
  Let me also just say that we've had several temporary short-term 
increases in the debt limit before there's been a more permanent 
longer-term increase--in 1987, in 1990, and 1996. So it is not 
unprecedented, the action that we're going to be taking today.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished member of the Ways 
and Means Committee, the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. 
Reichert).
  Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  Let me just see if I can simplify this just a little bit.
  There are three branches of government. Two branches of the 
government have responsibility for the budget, and there are three 
pieces to those two branches. The White House is one--the 
administration needs to produce a budget; the House Republicans need to 
produce a budget; and the Senate Democrats need to produce a budget for 
the system to work.
  Even though we may not agree with it on this side of the aisle, the 
President has produced his budget. It's increased our deficit from 
$11.4 to $16.4 trillion or $16.5 trillion. And some people at home may 
not really grasp the concept of $16 trillion. Let's just talk about $1 
trillion. If we spent a dollar a second, Mr. Speaker, how long would it 
take us to spend that $1 trillion? It would take 36,000 years. We are 
16 of those in debt. It's time for the Senate to do their job.
  Even though Admiral Mullen has said our greatest national security 
threat is our deficit, and even though the Senate has raised their 
right hand and took an oath to protect and defend this great Nation of 
ours and defend the Constitution, they still have not acted. They still 
have not done their job to protect and defend, to uphold the oath that 
they took. Again, Admiral Mullen has said--and I repeat--that national 
security is at great risk because of our $16 trillion deficit.
  Look, you own a home and you have a $50,000-a-year job and you're 
making your payments on a car and a house and you're thinking things 
are going just fine, but I want to add to that. I'm going to buy a new 
big screen TV, I'm going to put a pool table in, I'm going to buy two 
more cars, I'm going to put a pool in the back, I'm just going to fix 
the place up. All of a sudden you realize, I can't pay for it.
  You have some options available. You have to raise revenue. You go 
out and get two or three more jobs maybe, or your wife goes to work or 
your kids have to go to work. And that still doesn't meet your 
responsibilities. Then you have to stop spending, right? Stop spending.
  The only other option now is to get rid of some of the stuff you 
can't pay for because even though you might have stopped spending and 
you've taken another job and you've raised some revenue, now you've got 
to get rid of stuff.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
Washington.
  Mr. REICHERT. Let's get rid of the pool table, let's get rid of the 
big screen TV. We've got to start cutting things. We need to stop 
spending in this country. The Senate needs to do their job.
  No budget, no pay.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel).
  Mr. RANGEL. I don't think anyone challenges the fact that we have to 
stop overspending. You just can't simplify it and say, ``Stop 
spending.''
  The problem that we have now is that the debt ceiling has nothing to 
do with the full faith and credit of money that has already been spent. 
We'd have plenty of time to talk about taxes and spending if we'd talk 
about concurrent resolutions, if we'd talk about sequestration; but if 
what you're saying is that if there is a budget that I have to vote 
``yes'' or ``no'' on and if one budget says that one way to close and 
reduce the deficit is to go after the people who are the poorest, the 
most sick, and the oldest and call that ``entitlement cutbacks'' and if 
I don't vote for that then it means that the government is not going to 
pay me, well, I can go home very easily and tell them that a bad budget 
is worse than no budget and that, once again, we are holding hostage 
the spending cuts that a lot of people want that should be negotiated.
  Perhaps we've got a 3-month reprieve, but the fact remains that this 
is holding up the President and our country from getting on with what 
we should do when the fiscal impact of this in our country and 
throughout the world is dangerous.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a distinguished member of 
the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed).
  Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I rise today in support of this No Budget, No Pay proposal.
  This is why we ran for office. This is why I came to Washington, 
D.C.--to stand for a vision that's going to attack this debt crisis 
that is upon us

[[Page 488]]

today, the debt crisis that will threaten our children and our 
grandchildren for generations if we do not get our fiscal house in 
order in Washington, D.C. It is time to put up the visions of the House 
Republicans versus those of the Senate Democrats as to what the 
proposals to move forward to solve this debt crisis are.
  We owe it to the American people, to hardworking taxpayers, to be 
open and honest, and if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
want to stand for budgets that are all about tax increases, so be it. I 
believe there is a better way, and that better way will be in a House 
Republican budget that does the responsible thing and lays out a vision 
of growth and opportunity for generations to deal with this 
unsustainable debt crisis that is now upon us.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 1 minute to another member of our committee, the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, here we are with another Republican straw 
man out here--a bill set up to fail. The Senate has not yet adopted its 
rules. We don't know where the filibuster is going to be used or 
anything, and you're saying they have to do something by a fixed date. 
Now, we've had fixed dates in here as long as I've been here, and we 
never make them; but what we are creating is continuous chaos globally 
in the economic world, and what you're doing by this is simply saying, 
hey, let's have another big kerfuffle. We'll be out here in May, 4 
months from now, making exactly the same speeches. We'll all bring out 
the same pieces of paper and read from them and give the same speeches, 
and we will continue to retard the ability of the American economy to 
move forward.
  We cannot send the message worldwide that the United States has lost 
the ability to make decisions, to pay its debts. If that's the message 
you want the world to get, that's what this is about today. I'm voting 
against this. Bring back one that lifts the debt limit and that gets it 
out of the way so we can get down to the cost-cutting that needs to 
happen.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield 1 minute to a distinguished member of the Ways and 
Means Committee, the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black).
  Mrs. BLACK. As a charter member of the Fix Congress Now Caucus and as 
an early supporter of the No Budget, No Pay, I am very excited that 
this legislation will be voted on in the House in just a little bit.
  We on the House Budget Committee work hard to pass a responsible 
budget each year, but the Democrat-controlled Senate refuses to do the 
same. In fact, it has been nearly 4 years since the Senate has passed a 
budget, and since that time, the government has racked up annual 
deficits exceeding $1 trillion a year and, in total, more than $5 
trillion in 4 years. If we stay on this current path of record 
deficits, big government, and unfunded entitlement programs, Greece's 
present will be America's future.
  A massive debt crisis is surely not the future we want for our 
children or our grandchildren. Fiscal responsibility and accountability 
in the Halls of Congress cannot wait. Today, we will take an important 
step in the House, forcing the Senate to either do its job or to face 
the consequences. It's simple: no budget, no pay.
  Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Neal).
  Mr. NEAL. Thank you, Mr. Levin.
  Our job here is to educate the public, not to entertain them. They 
ran up deficits on the Republican side of $6 trillion during an 8-year 
period of time--$2.3 trillion worth of tax cuts and two wars. Now they 
come back today with a glitzy proposal of no work, no pay.
  Institutional memory. Do you remember their term limits pledge? They 
invented that. They're all still here. Do you remember their line-item 
veto? the constitutional theorists? They got rid of that. How about 
that they were going to pass a balanced budget amendment to the 
Constitution? My dad used to say, ``At least Jesse James had enough 
personal respect to wear a mask.''
  The people who put us into this situation are now quibbling about 
raising the debt ceiling when they almost broke the country with the 
proposals that they offered during all of those years, and never once 
did they deny President Bush on those proposals.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield 1 minute to a distinguished member of the Ways and 
Means Committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).
  Mr. ROSKAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Look, here is an opportunity. There is an opportunity to find common 
ground. There is an opportunity to do something that makes common 
sense, that is not just common ground. It is common sense to require 
people, if they're getting compensation, to do their jobs. It has been 
4 years. Ironically, it has been since the day Rod Blagojevich, the 
Governor of Illinois, was indicted that the United States Senate has 
passed a budget, and now we have an opportunity to put pressure on the 
other body, which is for them to do their work.
  We don't do ourselves, we don't do our children, we don't do the 
taxpayers any favors by creating a climate that says ``folks don't have 
to do their work.'' We don't get to a solution or a remedy unless we 
pass budgets. This is an opportunity to get on record and put the other 
body out into the open field so we can have a discussion and move this 
country on a pathway that makes sense. We ought to pass this and pass 
it quickly.
  Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 1 minute to a member of our committee and 
chairman of our caucus, the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).
  Mr. BECERRA. If you buy a house, you pay your mortgage--well, at 
least under this bill, for 3 or 4 months. If you want your kids to go 
to college, you take out student loans, and you'll tell the bank, well, 
you'll pay for 3 or 4 months, and then we can talk again. If you want 
to buy a car, you go in and tell the dealer, Love that beautiful new 
car. You take out a loan. You pay for 3 or 4 months, and then you tell 
the dealer, Let's talk in about 3 or 4 months about what we do with the 
rest of the debt.
  This simply creates more uncertainty, another fiscal cliff and yet 
another economic case of sabotage against the American public. The 
party that voted for tax cuts for the wealthy, two wars, and a massive 
new prescription drug benefit program and that put all of the costs of 
that on a credit card doesn't believe it's important now to honor those 
obligations of paying those bills and maintaining the full faith and 
credit of the United States of America. Now, with this new Congress, we 
have a chance for a fresh start--an opportunity to find common ground, 
not more conflict. Instead, our Republican colleagues are threatening 
three strikes against the middle class, against small businesses and 
the U.S. economy--the U.S. default, a government shutdown, and 
sequestration.
  Let's start talking about what really matters to Americans, the 
biggest deficit we face--a jobs deficit. Let's get to work putting 
Americans back to work. Let's be problem solvers, not problem makers. 
It's time to get America moving again.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a distinguished member of 
the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Young).

                              {time}  1140

  Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, as I travel in my south central 
Indiana district, I hear frequently two simple requests from my 
constituents. First, they want us to get our spending and our debt 
under control. And, second, they want us to work together, 
collectively, Republicans and Democrats, to get that important job 
done. That's why I support this proposed legislation, H.R. 325.
  The bill strikes me as eminently reasonable because it not only 
satisfies those simple requests; it asks us to do our job. We are 
required under law, as has been said before, to pass a budget. The 
House is required to do it, and the Senate is required to do it. The 
Senate has not done it for 4 years.

[[Page 489]]

  Now, a budget is essentially spending priorities. It lays out your 
vision for the future. Whatever solutions you may or may not have are 
revealed in a budget. It's not easy to put together a budget. Sometimes 
it's unpopular, but it is our duty.
  So I say no budget, no pay. I'm tired of the Senate being dilatory in 
its responsibilities. They need to pass a budget. That's why I urge my 
colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 1 minute to another member of our committee, the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. We continue to talk past one another. The issue isn't 
passing a budget or not passing a budget. The issue is whether or not 
we're going to take fundamental steps to reform the way that we spend 
money around here.
  The Republican budget of my good friend, Mr. Ryan, that they've 
passed on a couple of occasions would have required 9 trillion dollars 
in additional debt ceiling increase and wouldn't be balanced for two 
decades.
  Let's stop playing games with the form, and let's sit down and work 
on the things we agree upon. I think the American public would support 
us if we took out tens of billions of dollars of unnecessary spending 
for redundant nuclear weapons; to reform the scandal that is the crop 
insurance program that incents people to plant land that they shouldn't 
plant and drives up losses. Let's accelerate health care reform like 
we're doing in Oregon that would save over a trillion dollars if it 
were applied nationally.
  Let's get down and do it. Act, don't debate.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a distinguished member of 
the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 
325. The bill is an important step toward getting our fiscal house in 
order because it requires the Senate to finally pass a budget, 
something American families and businesses do each and every day.
  The Federal Government is currently in the process of accumulating 
its fifth consecutive trillion-dollar deficit. We need a serious, 
forward-looking plan to address the deficit. However, the Senate has 
gone nearly 4 years without even passing an annual budget.
  Taking a year-by-year approach and addressing only discretionary 
spending will not solve our long-term spending problem. We must take a 
comprehensive, long-term approach to the Federal budget. A 
comprehensive approach to spending must also address the long-term 
solvency issues of entitlements such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social 
Security. Without reform, spending will remain on an unsustainable path 
while the Medicare and Social Security trust funds are emptied before 
the majority of Americans who currently are paying in even qualify to 
become beneficiaries of those programs.
  Today's legislation will allow us to work with the Senate in 
achieving this long-term deficit solution we know would meet the needs 
of Americans.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pascrell), a member of our committee.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, the 14th Amendment of the Constitution 
states, if I may paraphrase, the public debt of the United States shall 
not be questioned. In other words, we don't even have the power, 
really, in section 4 of that amendment. Take a look at it and read it, 
what our objectives are, rather than bring to debate year after year 
whether we should raise the debt limit. We have to do our jobs.
  It would be foolish if people around the world began to wonder, once 
again, whether or not the Congress will give the President the ability 
to pay the debts that we racked up. Both sides voted for much of this. 
The fact is that the United States, as the President said, is not a 
deadbeat Nation. We will pay our obligations, both to our bondholders 
and to seniors and veterans and the middle class.
  So while I'm glad my colleagues on the other side have edged slightly 
away from the precipice of default, they are still leaving themselves 
room to backtrack if they don't get what they want. And just the fact 
that the conference chairperson has said if we have to shut down the 
government to make sure that President Obama understands that we're 
serious, that's almost treason, according to the 14th Amendment.
  Mr. CAMP. At this time I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of 
H.R. 325, which is based on a very simple principle: if Congress does 
not pass a budget, Congress does not get paid.
  We cannot start the process of controlling spending in this country 
without a budget. We also cannot ask hardworking taxpayers to manage 
their own budgets when their elected leaders fail to do so.
  The House has done its work and passed a budget each of the past 2 
years. The other body of this branch must do theirs if we're going to 
address our out-of-control spending. For nearly 4 years, the Senate has 
gotten away with not passing a budget, but they've found time to pass 
laws that increase spending. Failing to budget for our country for the 
past 4 years is a terrible way to run a government, and I support this 
bill which will pay for bills already obligated.
  We have to stop the political gamesmanship that is occurring here in 
this town and work together to find commonsense solutions to cut 
spending and find savings in our budget. I look forward to passing this 
bill that will finally hold Congress accountable and begin putting 
America on a debt repayment plan and save future generations from 
paying for the mistakes of the past.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) has 
9\1/2\ minutes, and the other gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) has 
5\1/4\ minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us today solves no problems. In 
fact, it just maintains the great uncertainty hanging over the U.S. and 
the global economy--whether or not we're going to jeopardize the full 
faith and credit of the United States of America and default on our 
Nation's financial obligations for the first time in our Nation's 
history. I do not for the life of me understand why anyone would 
jeopardize that safe haven that's been established in this country.
  But we all know what needs to be done to get our fiscal house in 
order. Both parties are going to have to lock arms and jump into the 
icy water and make difficult decisions together. Every bipartisan 
commission that has been formed to address this issue has come up with 
the same conclusion. There's going to have to be some additional 
revenue, and there's going to have to be major spending reforms in our 
budget to make this work.
  But my friends on the other side have not been exactly up front with 
the American people. They've finished two national campaigns promising 
to restore $700 billion to the Medicare program and increase defense 
spending by over $2 trillion over the next 10 years. That's $2.7 
trillion additional dollars in the two largest spending programs. So we 
do need an honest conversation about this.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to place in the 
Record a letter from the Executive Office of the President, a Statement 
of Administration Policy, that says:

       The administration would not oppose a short-term solution 
     to the debt limit and looks forward to continuing to work 
     with both the House and the Senate to increase certainty and 
     stability for the American economy.

  I reserve the balance of my time.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


             H.R. 325--Temporary Suspension of Debt Ceiling

        (Rep. Camp, R-MI, and Rep. Miller, R-MI, Jan. 22, 2013)

       The Administration supports a long-term increase in the 
     debt limit that would increase certainty and economic 
     stability. Although H.R. 325 is a short-term measure and

[[Page 490]]

     introduces unnecessary complications, needlessly perpetuating 
     uncertainty in the Nation's fiscal system, the Administration 
     is encouraged that H.R. 325 lifts the immediate threat of 
     default and indicates that congressional Republicans have 
     backed off an insistence on holding the Nation's economy 
     hostage to extract drastic cuts in Medicare, education, and 
     other programs that middle-class families depend on. For 
     these reasons, the Administration would not oppose a short-
     term solution to the debt limit and looks forward to 
     continuing to work with both the House and the Senate to 
     increase certainty and stability for the economy.
       Instead of short-term management of self-inflicted fiscal 
     crises, the President believes there is now an opportunity to 
     strengthen the economy by putting the Nation on a sounder 
     fiscal path. Progress has already been made towards that 
     goal. In 2011, the President signed into law $1.4 trillion in 
     spending reductions, not counting additional savings from 
     winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The fiscal 
     agreement the President signed at the beginning of January 
     increased revenue from high-income households by over $600 
     billion. Together with interest savings, these two steps will 
     cut the deficit by more than $2.5 trillion over the next 
     decade. The President has made clear that he remains willing 
     to work with both parties in the Congress to budget 
     responsibly and to achieve additional deficit reduction 
     consistent with the principles of balance, shared growth, and 
     shared opportunity.
       The President has also made clear that he will not have 
     another debate with the Congress over whether or not they 
     should pay the bills that they have already racked up through 
     the laws that they passed. The President has made clear that 
     the Congress has only two options--pay their bills, or fail 
     to do so and put the Nation into default.
       H.R. 325 would temporarily allow the Congress to fund 
     commitments to which it has already agreed. A temporary 
     solution is not enough to remove the threat of default that 
     Republicans in the Congress have held over the economy. The 
     Congress should commit to paying its bills and pass a long-
     term clean debt limit increase that lifts self-inflicted and 
     unnecessary uncertainty from the Nation's economy.

  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Crowley), a member of our committee.
  Mr. CROWLEY. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding me this 
time.
  The Budget Control Act of 2011 sets the budget for the next 10 years. 
It actually says it in the name of the bill: the Budget Control Act. 
Many of my colleagues on either side supported that bill. So we have a 
budget in place for 10 years. You don't like what you voted for now, I 
understand that. That's problematic.
  But this bill before us today is not a serious proposal by House 
Republicans, but rather a gimmick. Even the Wall Street Journal called 
it a gimmick.

                              {time}  1150

  This bill does not provide certainty to the business community, the 
international markets or job creators here in the U.S. that the U.S. 
Government will pay its bills.
  This bill simply sets up another GOP-manufactured crisis in 4 months, 
putting the economy and the creditworthiness of our Nation at risk. 
Instead of no cliffs, my Republican colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle are creating a new cliff.
  The American people sent us here to work, not to play more games. But 
my Republican colleagues are failing America again. Only 38 of my 
Republican colleagues voted for the Hurricane Sandy relief. Only 85 of 
their Members voted to provide tax cuts to the middle class. Yet, when 
it comes to pushing our country over the brink, they're all in.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the Speaker of the 
House.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Let me thank my colleague for yielding, and ask my 
colleagues today to vote for the No Budget, No Pay Act.
  You know, the promise here is pretty simple. It says that there 
should be no long-term increase in the debt limit until there's a long-
term plan to deal with the fiscal crisis that faces our country.
  Every hardworking taxpayer in America knows that they have to do a 
budget. Every hardworking taxpayer understands that you can't continue 
to spend money that you don't have.
  We are committed to continue to do a budget every year. And if you 
think about this, it's not just that we've done a budget the last 2 
years that addresses our fiscal crisis. Even when the Democrats had 
control, in the 2 years before that, you all did a budget. And yet, for 
4 years, nearly 4 years, the United States Senate has not done a 
budget.
  And so this bill before us is real simple. It says, Congress, if you 
don't do a budget, you don't get paid. I have no doubt that we're going 
to do our work. We're committed to doing a budget and a 10-year plan to 
solve our budget crisis and to balance our budget.
  Frankly, I think it's time for the Senate and the White House to 
produce a budget that will balance over the next 10 years.
  You know, most Americans would look up and go, wait a minute, why do 
they need 10 years to balance the budget?
  But we know with baby boomers retiring, and the fact that it wasn't 
prepared for, it's going to take a little more time. But my goodness, 
we ought to be able to balance the budget in the next 10 years.
  Balancing the budget over the next 10 years means that we save the 
future for our kids and our grandkids. It also means that we strengthen 
programs like Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid that can't 
continue to exist in the current form without some kind of controls.
  It's time for Congress to get serious about this, and this is the 
first step in an effort to bring real fiscal responsibility to 
Washington. It's real simple. No budget, no pay.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer), our whip.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I want to say to the Speaker before he leaves the floor, I believe 
the Speaker wants to get to a responsible agreement between our 
parties, between the House and the Senate, and between the Congress and 
the President on getting to a responsible way to reduce the budget. 
This bill is not that vehicle.
  This bill, in my view, is an irresponsible waste of our time. This 
bill does not do what Republicans said they wanted to do over and over 
and over again, and that is give a sense of certainty to our economy, 
to our people, and to the international community.
  This bill kicks the can down the road for 90 days one more time. This 
bill simply puts a leverage point another 90 days away, so that we can 
continue to roil this Congress, roil this country, and roil our people 
and our economy.
  This bill is a political gimmick. This bill was cooked up a few miles 
from here when, frankly, the majority party said, We're in trouble. The 
people don't like us. Things aren't going well. How do we fix it?
  Well, they came up with this gimmick, and the gimmick was, if you 
don't vote the way we want you to vote, we won't pay you.
  Now, very frankly, the problem with that premise is that we are 
elected by 435 districts who have different perspectives. And my view 
is the overwhelming majority of us come here, work very hard on behalf 
of our constituents, but your constituents may not like what my 
constituents want. But that doesn't mean you have the right to say 
you're not going to get paid, Mr. Hoyer, because we don't like what 
you're working for. If that's our premise, we are holding hostage 
policy in an undemocratic, dictatorial fashion.
  Not only that, this 90-day kicking the can down the road has got to 
stop. We need to come to reality that it's not the debt limit that's 
the problem--and the President's absolutely right. The President has 
nothing to do with the debt limit. Only this House and the Senate can 
spend money. The President can't spend a nickel. Only this House and 
only this Senate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. HOYER. The other problem with this, of course, is we're now going 
to spend till 12:30 today discussing this critically important issue. 
We treat it like just a throwaway. I can't discuss the substance of 
this issue in the time allotted to me, nor can any other Member.

[[Page 491]]

  When I had a magic 1 minute, it was a little better when I was 
majority leader. I miss that very much.
  But I urge both of us, both Republicans and Democrats, to come to 
grips with making the hard decision, not the political demagoguery 
decisions that this bill projects. Let us sit down together and come to 
grips with the fact that, yes, my friend, we need more revenues and, 
yes, we need to restrain spending and, yes, we need to restrain 
entitlements.
  I say that as a leader of my party.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. HOYER. But I say to all of us, you will not get there with 
gimmicks. You will not get there with pretense. You will not get there 
with irresponsibility and kick the can down the road.
  I understand what you have done. You've taken your most controversial 
leverage point and put it at the end, rather than at the beginning of 
the process. But you still have the CR, and you still have the 
sequester, and we'll have to debate those.
  What we ought to be doing is extending this debt limit for 1, 2, 4, 
or 6 years, or eliminating it all together. When you spend money, it 
has nothing to do with the debt limit and everything to do with the 
actions of this Congress.
  Mr. CAMP. At this time I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Member 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).
  Mr. FITZPATRICK. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not a gimmick. For the past, almost going on now 
4 years, our colleagues in the Senate have failed in their most basic 
responsibility of governance, which is to pass a budget.
  The people I represent back in Bucks County and Montgomery County, 
Pennsylvania, the families and the businesses, they wouldn't survive 
without being able to operate on a budget. The school districts, the 
municipalities, the boroughs, the townships, the county government, 
even the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, are all required to pass a 
budget that balances on time.
  I'm proud to have, over the course of the past year, been advocating 
consistently for no budget, no pay in this House. The hardworking men 
and women that I represent wouldn't be paid if they didn't show up and 
they didn't do their job, or they didn't get their job done on time. 
And this place should operate no differently.
  So I call on all our Members of the House, all my colleagues, to 
support no budget, no pay in these very difficult and troubled times.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Davis).
  Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  No budget, no pay. No budget, no responsibility. No stability, no 
confidence. No confidence, no ability to borrow, to attract investors.
  H.R. 325 is a gimmick. It is a gimmick. And I've always been taught 
that if you have a debt, pay it. Delaying it drives up interest rates 
and is not the best approach to convincing investors and lenders that 
we have the ability to pay.
  If you convince people that you don't have the ability to pay, it is 
more likely that they're not going to let you have what you want. 
That's what I've always been taught. They do not want gimmicks. They 
want solutions.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. CAMP. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Can I ask how much time we have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) has 
3 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) also has 3 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 1 minute to a member of our committee, the 
Congresswoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez).
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. I want to thank my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle for understanding the need to stop dancing 
with default. Recognizing that we can't disregard our obligations to 
seniors, veterans, and active military is a first big step. But this 
legislation doesn't create the long-term certainty that our economy 
needs. The small business owners that I talk to tell me that they need 
certainty before they can invest in their businesses and hire more 
employees.
  Instead of providing small businesses the long-term certainty they 
need, the Republican-led House is just playing games. They're stringing 
the American public along so they can set up yet another dramatic 
showdown that only hurts our recovery. The mere mention of default 
sends markets plummeting, dries up hiring, and pulls the rug out from 
under consumer confidence.
  Businesses in my district and all across the country can't afford 
more tantrums threatening defaults and government shutdowns. It's our 
job to find a solution and give businesses, the markets, and American 
families the long-term certainty they deserve. This legislation isn't a 
long-term solution. It's yet more irresponsible gamesmanship.
  Mr. CAMP. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Delaney).
  Mr. DELANEY. There's more cash in U.S. corporations than there's ever 
been in our country's history. Corporations have three things they can 
do with their cash: They can raise their dividends; they can buy back 
stock; or they can make investments.
  To make investments, which require a long-term time horizon, there 
needs to be certainty. If we care about American families, if we want 
our corporations to make investments that will create jobs, we will 
have certainty on the debt ceiling for a reasonable period of time and 
we will create fiscal certainty in this country in a balanced way. By 
``balanced,'' I mean additional revenues. That's what will create 
certainty in this country. That's what will get U.S. corporations 
investing.
  If U.S. corporations invest, we create jobs, and that helps working 
families.
  Mr. CAMP. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, how much time do we have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Foxx). The gentleman from Michigan has 1 
minute remaining.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  This isn't: no budget, no pay. This is: 3 months, no certainty. It's 
been said it kicks the can down the road--a road paved with 
uncertainty.
  What this does, in a few words, is keep default hanging over the 
heads of this Congress and over the heads of the American economy and 
the American people. It's unwise to do that. We tried that in the 
summer of 2011. The Republicans more than flirted with it, and they 
flirted dangerously. Now they're pulling back.
  But instead of meeting this head-on, they essentially bring a bill 
here that presumes that it moves us ahead, when it moves us into more 
and more uncertainty. This is unwise. Politically, they think it's 
smart policy. For the American people, it's very dumb.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The gentleman, my friend from Michigan, talked about certainty. And 
yes, there is certainty, because the Senate majority leader just 
announced they will take up this bill and pass it. And I think every 
American understands that we must get our debt and deficit under 
control. We've had over $5 trillion in increases in deficits in the 
Obama administration--almost a 50 percent increase in our national 
debt.
  And let me just say that we have had many short-term increases in the 
debt limit over time. What was business as usual when the Democrats 
were in the majority? We had nine short-term debt increases--three of 
them in 1987 and six of them in 1990--before longer, more permanent 
debt limit increases were made. So what was business as usual for the 
Democrats they now call ``flirting dangerously'' for Republicans.
  I think it is very important we move forward on increasing the debt 
limit

[[Page 492]]

for this limited period of time while we can then address the issues 
that will help affect our long-term debts and deficits, including the 
sequester and the continuing resolution.
  When the long-term debt of the United States was lowered to a AA-plus 
rating on August 5, 2011, they said that the downgrade, which was after 
the Budget Control Act was passed, reflected their opinion that the 
fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the administration recently 
agreed to--meaning the Budget Control Act--falls short of what, in our 
view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term debt 
dynamics, meaning we didn't do enough to address the drivers of our 
long-term debt. We must do that.
  I would urge my colleagues to support H.R. 325, to support the No 
Budget, No Pay Act, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I rise today in strong support of H.R. 325, the No Budget, No Pay 
Act.
  The Budget Act of 1974 requires each House of Congress to pass a 
budget each year by April 15. This is important, of course, because the 
budget that we pass is our blueprint, literally, for how we're going to 
spend the hard-earned tax dollars that the American people send here to 
Washington to run our Nation.
  Today, we are in a situation where the United States Senate has not 
passed a budget in nearly 4 full years, leaving the American people 
with no idea of how the Senate intends to deal with the fiscal crisis 
that is facing our Federal Government. In the time since the Senate 
last passed a budget, the Federal Government has experienced deficits 
of over $1 trillion each and every year, and we have added more than $5 
trillion to our national debt. Obviously, this is a very serious fiscal 
crisis, and the American people are demanding answers.
  This legislation will allow us room to begin working on a solution 
that will put our Nation on a much more sound financial footing. This 
bill will extend our Nation's borrowing authority for 90 days to give 
each House of Congress, the House and the Senate, the needed time to do 
what they are legally required to do, which is to pass a budget to show 
the American people how we intend to deal with the many challenges that 
we face. But while giving Congress time to do its work, it also has a 
very important caveat associated with it that says, if we don't do what 
we are required to do by law, that we will not be paid. Simply put: no 
budget, no pay.
  This idea actually came, Madam Speaker, from previous bipartisan 
efforts to bring fiscal responsibility to Washington. And now the 
President has indicated that if it reaches his desk, he will sign it, 
that he does not oppose it.
  As well, there have been very promising indications coming out of the 
United States Senate from many Democratic Members that they will also 
step up, after 4 long years of inaction, and put forward a budget.

                              {time}  1210

  I believe that this can be the impetus today for us to begin working 
together to make the difficult decisions to finally address our fiscal 
challenges. Today, we can send that very strong message to the American 
people with a bipartisan vote to show that we are willing to put our 
paychecks on the line to meet these challenges.
  Now, some are concerned about whether or not this legislation is 
constitutional because of the 27th Amendment's restriction that the pay 
of Members of Congress cannot be varied--that is really the operative 
phrase of that amendment, ``varied''--that it can neither be raised nor 
reduced until another election has taken place. This bill, Madam 
Speaker, was carefully crafted to comply with the requirements of the 
27th Amendment.
  So this is how it will work:
  If either the House or the Senate does not pass a budget by April 15, 
the deadline, then beginning on April 16, the pay for Members of that 
Chamber will be placed into an escrow account and will only be paid 
when that Chamber--either the House or the Senate--has passed a budget 
or when we reach the end of the 113th Congress. The amount that Members 
are paid will not be reduced nor will it be raised, so we stay in 
strict compliance with the terms of the 27th Amendment.
  There is no requirement in the 27th Amendment which states that 
Members have to be paid weekly, biweekly, monthly, or bimonthly or what 
have you, only that the pay that they receive will not vary.
  Now, some have suggested that the escrow account into which the 
Member pay would be deposited should bear interest so that that could 
then, as well, be paid to the Members. This cannot happen because that 
would actually cause Member pay to increase, of course. It would then 
vary their pay, which would not be in compliance with the strict terms 
of the 27th Amendment.
  So I am extremely hopeful, Madam Speaker, that we will successfully 
conclude our work in a timely basis here in the House, and I hope that 
this additional provision, as well, encourages the Senate to also 
complete our important work and pass a budget.
  What we are suggesting certainly is not unreasonable. I'll tell you, 
I come from southeast Michigan, and one thing I can tell you that is 
true about the people that I am honored to serve is that they get up 
every single day, every morning and work hard all day, every day. They 
simply do not understand how Congress can fail to do our job for almost 
4 years--no budget out of the Senate for almost 4 years--and yet suffer 
no consequences.
  The American people are demanding that their Members of Congress deal 
effectively with the challenges we face. Our problems are real, and 
it's time for real solutions or real consequences.
  The concept, again, very simple: no budget, no pay. When times are 
tight, you balance your checkbook. When you run out of money, you stop 
spending. When your credit card is maxed out, you cut it up or get a 
plan together to pay it off. And if you don't do your job, you don't 
get paid. These are the principles, Madam Speaker, that Americans live 
by, and we certainly should be no exception.
  So I would urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  This bill is not a serious or viable attempt to address the debt 
ceiling issue and is merely another way to avoid dealing with the 
difficult choices we need to make.
  We have been here before. We know what happens when we govern with 
this kick-the-can-down-the-road mentality. The most troubling effect, 
again, is the constitutionality of this bill is also dangerously 
unclear.
  I was not on the floor last week when my colleagues read the 
Constitution. Maybe they didn't reach the 27th Amendment. I am not a 
constitutional attorney. I am not an attorney in any way, and I make no 
apologies for that. But it's real easy:

       No law, varying the compensation for the services of the 
     Senators or Representatives, shall take effect, until an 
     election of the Representatives shall have intervened.

  ``Varying'' is the, again, as my friend did say, operative word. If 
you aren't getting a paycheck in a month and you're going to wait for 
18 months, that's varying. So it could be--and, in my opinion, it is--a 
constitutional problem.
  But be that as it may, I do commend the majority for recognizing that 
Congress must pay its bills, that raising the debt ceiling isn't about 
spending more money, it's about paying for bills we already incurred.
  There is widespread, bipartisan acknowledgement of how difficult and 
serious the fiscal challenges before us have become. However, this 
proposal is just another attempt to yet again put the discussion off 
for another day.
  Madam Speaker, I came here and I saw the sign, ``No Budget, No Pay.'' 
It probably should say, ``No Budget, Delayed Pay,'' but it sounds 
better when you say ``No Budget, No Pay.'' That

[[Page 493]]

means we may not be getting paid, but we're going to get paid; it will 
be delayed, but we're going to get paid.
  Every year in this house we do pass a budget; although, it's a budget 
that I can't vote for. It's a budget that hurts the middle class, the 
working class, the want-to-be-working class, and it also hurts the 
American people's safety net. We know again this year we will pass that 
budget. So our friends on the other side of the aisle are putting up a 
No Budget, No Pay quite well knowing that they will probably pass their 
budget and we probably will get paid.
  On another thought, as my good friend, Mr. Doyle, from Pittsburgh has 
said to me, why not no gun control, no pay? Why not no immigration 
reform, no pay? Why not no DISCLOSE Act, no pay?
  So, Madam Speaker, in my opinion--and I think in a lot of my 
colleagues' opinion--it's a gimmick bill. No Budget, No Pay has no 
teeth.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Madam Speaker, before I yield time to my 
good colleague here, a couple of comments in regards to what my ranking 
member has said from the committee, why not no gun control, no pay, or 
using some other examples. I would just point out that none of those 
are required by law, as passing a budget is required by law.
  Also, there was some comment again about the significance of the 27th 
Amendment. I would just add quickly a statement from David Rivkin, Jr., 
and Lee Casey. These are two constitutional attorneys that served in 
former administrations who say the bill passes muster. Their comment:

       It does not vary Members' compensation instead holding it 
     in escrow until such time that a budget is passed or, at the 
     latest, this Congress comes to an end. It is attentive to the 
     text and structure of the Constitution.

  And just one other quote. This is from another constitutional 
attorney, a Greg Watson--actually, a gentleman who rallied the support 
to pass the 27th Amendment. I will proudly point out, in 1992 it was my 
State of Michigan that put it over the three-fourths threshold. But at 
any rate, he said:

       Nowhere in such a proposal do I see any violation of the 
     terms and provisions of the 27th Amendment. Such a proposal 
     does not vary the dollar amount of compensation to Members of 
     Congress. The proposal merely delays the disbursement of that 
     dollar amount.

          Statement of David B. Rivkin, Jr., and Lee A. Casey

       Members of Congress are accountable not just to serve their 
     constituents but also to support and defend the Constitution 
     of the United States. The House of Representatives' debt 
     ceiling extension furthers both. The American people expect 
     that their elected representatives in Congress will work 
     together to enact a budget resolution, and the House bill's 
     approach holds them personally accountable for doing so. It 
     honors both Article I and the Twenty-Seventh Amendment to the 
     U.S. Constitution because it does not vary Members' 
     compensation, instead holding it in escrow until such time 
     that a budget is passed or, at the latest, this Congress 
     comes to an end. This mechanism is a model for the way that 
     Congress ought to work: it is creative, it is fiscally 
     responsible, and it is attentive to the text and structure of 
     the Constitution.

  Madam Speaker, at this time I am very honored and privileged to yield 
2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Harper), who is a 
distinguished member of the Committee on House Administration.
  Mr. HARPER. Madam Speaker, the No Budget, No Pay portion of this bill 
was written specifically to ensure that it complies with the 27th 
Amendment to the Constitution. The bill does not vary the amount of 
compensation and is, therefore, constitutional. It only changes when 
Representatives and Senators are paid if they fail to adopt a budget 
resolution, as required by law.
  Currently, Representatives are paid monthly and Senators are paid 
twice a month. This bill simply says, if the House does not adopt a 
budget resolution, the Members of that House, instead, get paid at the 
end of that term of Congress.
  In 1789, James Madison, when he introduced the 27th Amendment, spoke 
of preventing changes in compensation from being for the benefit of 
those determining them. The clear purpose of the amendment--which, as 
we know, was not ratified until 1992--was to prevent Members from 
drawing higher salaries from the public treasury without giving voters 
an opportunity to speak on that decision. This bill does not benefit 
Members at the expense of taxpayers, and it is consistent with the 
provisions of the 27th Amendment.
  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. It is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).
  Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman.
  We have sharp differences in this body on taxes, on spending, on the 
best path forward to resolve our fiscal situation. Those are fairly 
legitimate debates, but there should be absolutely no daylight between 
us on meeting our obligation to pay our bills. There should be no 
linkage between the obligation to pay our bills and getting our way on 
contentious issues in dispute among us.
  This is just like a person with a credit card who buys a 
refrigerator. At the end of the month when the credit card bill 
arrives, they've used the refrigerator, they see they're above their 
credit limit, they don't tear up their credit card. What they do is 
they stiff their credit card company.

                              {time}  1220

  We have to pay our bills. That is not negotiable. A year ago August 
when we went through this spectacle with this linkage, we suffered our 
first downgrade in the history of the country. That is outrageous. And 
it's going to cost taxpayers money. If we mess around with the debt 
ceiling, creating uncertainty as to whether this is a political tool 
and gimmick, a 1 percent increase in interest rates will cost the 
taxpayers $1 trillion.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Madam Speaker, the reason that we have such 
an enormous amount of national debt, such a number that you can't even 
get your mind around it anymore, $16 trillion, a big component of that 
is because we have not been following the law in having the Senate pass 
a budget as we have done in this House.
  I would say, having been very proud to participate and sit on the 
platform watching the President of the United States in his inaugural 
getting sworn in just the other day, one of the things that he said is 
that we have to address our debt and we have to work together. And 
today, the White House is saying they will not oppose this bill. So I 
am asking my colleagues to work together in a bipartisan way. Passing a 
budget is the foundation for us to begin to get a handle on this out-
of-control spending and the deficit and the debt that we have.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from New York, Hakeem Jeffries.
  Mr. JEFFRIES. Over the last 2 years, the debt ceiling has been 
illegitimately demonized, politicized, and mischaracterized. If it were 
possible to give voice to the debt ceiling, it might reasonably ask the 
question: Where do I go to get my reputation back?
  The debt ceiling is not a forward-looking vehicle designed to give 
the President the power to spend more. It is a backward-looking vehicle 
designed to give the administration the ability to pay bills that have 
already been incurred by the Congress.
  We've all sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution. We, therefore, 
have a constitutional obligation to protect the full faith and credit 
of the United States to prevent a default and to stop holding the 
economy hostage to economic and ideological extremism.
  The American people deserve a meaningful, long-term increase in the 
debt ceiling that will give us the stability to create economic growth. 
That is the reason why I urge a ``no'' vote on this legislative 
gimmick.
  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 
1 minute to the distinguished Democratic leader, Ms. Nancy Pelosi.
  Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I 
thank him; our ranking member on the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. 
Levin; and our ranking member on Budget, Mr. Van Hollen, for their

[[Page 494]]

leadership and the clarity they have brought to the debate on the floor 
today.
  It's a curiosity what we have on the floor today. It's a subterfuge 
to distract from the matter at hand. Madam Speaker, once again, as has 
happened too often in the last 2 years, we have come to the floor at a 
moment when our Republican colleagues are threatening the full faith 
and credit of the United States of America and putting the stability of 
our economy on the line.
  Too often, families and small businesses have faced uncertainty about 
the debt ceiling, funding our national government, our Tax Code, and 
the rest. Three months. Where is the certainty in 3 months? We should 
not even be having a debate. There should be no doubt that the full 
faith and credit of the United States will be honored, and that is what 
our Constitution says.
  Too often, House Republicans have refused to acknowledge the negative 
impact of their action, choosing to return to the same tired, failed 
strategy, one that only serves to, again, weaken our economy and 
undermine our middle class. That track record must end.
  Now, I'm hearing people say that we should go down this path of least 
resistance. That's what I call it. It's an easy way out, 3 months. But 
the fact is that that is a path to even more problems and, as Mr. 
Crowley has said, a path to another cliff.
  Our country needs a clean, long-term debt ceiling increase and a 
bipartisan, balanced budget that protects Medicare and Social Security, 
invests in the future, and responsibly reduces the deficit. We all know 
that. We know that as we go forward to reduce the deficit we need 
growth in job creation, we need spending cuts, and we need revenue. 
Democrats have already agreed to $1.6 trillion in spending cuts. 
Democrats have already agreed to more than $1 trillion in Medicare 
savings to strengthen Medicare and to protect beneficiaries and not to 
affect their benefits. Democrats and Republicans came together to avert 
the fiscal cliff and raise revenues by de-linking the tax cut for the 
high end from the tax cut for the middle class.
  We all agree that more can and must be done to get our fiscal house 
in order. But we must face the facts. Real, lasting deficit reduction 
will only be achieved through an approach that is balanced, fair, and 
focused on jobs and the prosperity of our middle class.
  Unfortunately, this bill on the floor today fails to meet those 
standards. Americans and Members of Congress should remember two words 
about this legislation--two words: three months. Three months. That's 
how long Republicans are prepared to raise the debt ceiling. Today they 
really don't even address the debt ceiling issue--three months.
  But Republican leaders are doing more. They have made promises to 
their fellow Republicans, to get their vote, to even go beyond the Ryan 
budget. This is like the Ryan budget on steroids. They have called this 
bill No Budget, No Pay. But who pays under the Republican budget? 
Seniors pay, ending the Medicare guarantee. Seniors, children, and 
people with disabilities pay, cutting Medicaid. Children pay because it 
will cut investments in their education, in their future, in their 
self-fulfillment, in the competitiveness of our country in the global 
economy. Veterans pay because of the gutting of our domestic spending 
priorities.
  I don't think that we should ever link what we do here as to whether 
people get paid. We have a lot of work to do here. This linkage is a 
gimmick, it's a joke, and it's not right. It's designed to put people 
on the spot and say, you don't get paid, and in order to get paid, in 
order for Members of Congress to get paid, you must cut benefits for 
seniors and their Medicare guarantee, Medicaid and the rest. It's a 
false link. It shouldn't even be there in the first place, and it is 
wrong.
  Again, this proposal is a missed opportunity. It does not relieve the 
uncertainty faced by small businesses, the markets, and the middle 
class. It is a gimmick unworthy of the fiscal and economic challenges 
that we face. This proposal does not have certainty. It does not have 
growth, and it does not have my support. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. How much time do I have remaining, Madam 
Speaker?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 4\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. I would like to yield 1 minute to my dear 
friend from right across the river from me, the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, an owner of a software company is 
deciding whether to hire more people today, a manufacturer is deciding 
whether to buy a new piece of equipment, a restaurant owner is deciding 
whether to add more tables and jobs to her restaurant. In order for 
them to decide to grow, they need to know there's going to be a stable 
financial environment.
  What we're doing today is saying to those decisionmakers, don't 
worry, the government is going to pay all of its bills until May 19. 
After that, we're not sure.
  The way to reduce the deficit is, yes, fiscal restraint and adding 
revenue, but the way to reduce the deficit is to grow jobs in this 
country. The people who decide to grow jobs in this country will not 
make that decision in an atmosphere of financial chaos.
  This bill creates another fiscal cliff. Fiscal cliffs are the 
problem, not the solution. The solution is economic growth.
  Let's oppose this bill and oppose yet another unnecessary and 
contrived fiscal cliff.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New York, Mr. Jerry Nadler.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, the gimmick nature of this whole thing I 
won't elaborate on. It's been done before. The fact that this provision 
of withholding pay from Members of Congress is unconstitutional as it 
varies Members' pay is obvious. The argument that withholding pay for a 
year and a half or a year and three-quarters is not varying 
compensation. It is constitutionally laughable and beneath respect.
  Secondly, this is institutionalized bribery and extortion. It should 
never be considered. What this provision says is if you vote the way we 
think you ought to vote, you'll get paid. If you vote the way we think 
you should not vote, you will not get paid. That's why we have this 
provision in the Constitution. We should not be bribing Members. We 
should not say to a Member that if you think the budget before you is 
not good for the country, vote against it and you won't get paid; if 
you think it's not good for the country, you better vote for it because 
you have a mortgage payment coming due.
  How dare we.
  Finally, the last thing we want to do is say to people thinking of 
running for the Congress, if you're not a millionaire, don't run 
because there's no guarantee you'll be paid.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, it's my honor to yield 1\1/
2\ minutes to the assistant Democratic leader, Mr. Clyburn.
  Mr. CLYBURN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  In 2011, the majority leader, Mr. Cantor, said:

       We don't need to be governing in 2 month increments.

  I agree.

       We don't need any more uncertainty.

  I agree.
  He later said:

       Uncertainty prevents entrepreneurs from taking a risk, from 
     starting a business and creating jobs.

  I agree. Governing in 3-month increments is no better. It maintains a 
continuous cloud of uncertainty.
  We all saw the damage caused in 2011 when our Republican colleagues 
risked the full faith and credit of the United States. Businesses 
slowed and Standard & Poor's downgraded America's credit.

[[Page 495]]

Going down this road again will threaten our ongoing economic recovery 
and reverse job growth.
  My Republican colleagues continue to use the American economy as 
leverage for their ideological agenda and creating another cliff is not 
an adequate solution. This is hostage-taking, and this is unacceptable.
  This bill merely kicks the can down the road and does nothing to end 
the uncertainty facing businesses. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. As I have no more speakers, I'm prepared 
to close and yield myself the balance of my time.
  I heard the previous speakers on the other side talk about no budget, 
no pay. It's no budget, delayed pay. They are trying to fool the 
American people by saying we're not getting paid, which is not true. We 
are going to be getting paid--which I doubt also--at the end of 18 
months. So we're going to get paid.
  The reason why I doubt that is because every year my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle do pass a budget. Do we pass a budget that 
we can agree with? No. Do they hurt the middle class? Yes. Do they hurt 
the working class? Yes. Do they take away safety nets? Yes. Do they 
hurt our veterans? Yes.
  Without question, I will make a bet with anybody who would like to 
that there will be a budget passed in this session. When that happens, 
they will try to put some pressure on the Senate, which can easily pass 
anything they want to pass, and then that makes this no budget, no pay, 
no teeth.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  I would just say this, Madam Speaker: what we're hearing from our 
Democratic colleagues here in the House is really a complete disconnect 
from what we're hearing from their Senate colleagues about this 
particular bill.
  You have House Democrats saying that this bill is nothing but a 
gimmick. I've heard it said that this bill is a joke. In other words, 
it is a gimmick or a joke to suggest that Congress should follow the 
law.
  I think that's different than what Senate Democrats have been saying 
very vocally, that this bill actually would give them an opportunity to 
pass a budget and the White House saying that they won't oppose it. 
Again, it's a complete disconnect from my colleagues here on the floor, 
some that I'm hearing on the other side there. I would say more 
pointedly that it's a complete disconnect from what the American people 
have as an expectation for their government, which is to follow the 
law, to pass a budget, to get a handle on our debt and our spending, 
and to prioritize our spending.
  Again, a budget is a blueprint for a path forward. It speaks to the 
American people of the priorities of their Congress, of their 
government. We will have lots of other opportunities to address this 
terrible national debt.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COOPER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to support No Budget, No Pay. 
The idea behind No Budget, No Pay came from a Nashvillian who 
approached me two years ago and said, ``I don't get paid if I don't do 
my job, and do it on time. Why should Congress be any different?'' I 
agreed, and I introduced No Budget, No Pay in 2011 during the last 
Congress with the help of the important non-partisan reform group No 
Labels. I reintroduced the bill, H.R. 310, last Friday, with 48 
original cosponsors, 19 Democrats and 29 Republicans.
  The purpose of No Budget, No Pay is to get Congress to do its 
essential budgeting work on time. This means pay-for-performance, a new 
concept here on Capitol Hill. Getting the job done on time is a 
fundamental American principle yet one that has been forgotten in our 
nation's Capitol. Our No Budget, No Pay proposal aligns incentives of 
elected officials with those of our citizens back home so that we will 
start completing our work on time in order to get paid. The purpose of 
this bill is not punishment, but performance.
  We are in an interesting parliamentary situation today because, after 
stonewalling by both political parties, the Republican Party has now, 
suddenly and without hearings, adopted a diluted version of No Budget, 
No Pay for immediate floor consideration. Thankfully, the Democratic 
Party has decided not to make this a partisan issue, freeing members to 
vote as their conscience tells them.
  I am not defending Republican floor procedures, or the modifications 
they made to my bill. But the important point is that reform of 
Congress is long overdue, and this is the way to start, with a new type 
of reform that brings Congress back in line with the values and the 
work ethic of the American people. No work, no pay. No budget, no pay.
  Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 325, the No 
Budget, No Pay Act of 2013.
  It frustrates me to no end that my Republican colleagues still have 
not learned their lesson from their earlier failures on matters of 
similar character. The American people want results, not political 
gimmicks, which is precisely what this bill is. H.R. 325 does nothing 
to ensure the long-term stability of markets, promote sustainable 
economic growth, and protect the credit rating of the United States. 
Very much the opposite, it is a ``gotcha bill'' that allows House 
Republicans to thumb their noses at the Senate and blame it for faults 
in which House Republicans share. I have never been a great lover of 
the other body, but now is not the time for petulant antics. Now is the 
time for action in the public interest.
  I urge my colleagues to vote down H.R. 325. We have time enough--
though not much--to negotiate a bipartisan increase to the debt ceiling 
that is not just another stopgap measure creating new problems and 
risks in the immediate future. That will require good faith and hard 
work by all who choose to be involved. I choose so, and I hope my 
colleagues do as well.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, this measure will continue to ensure 
funding for all federal government obligations and allow the government 
to continue its day to day operations through May of 2013.
  The U.S. Constitution is clear on the subject of the debt limit. 
Section 4 of the 14th Amendment states in clear language that: ``the 
validity of the public debt of the United States . . . shall not be 
questioned.''
  The American people and our economy are being held hostage to 
gimmicks driven by polls, and unfettered brinkmanship. On the cusp of 
the inauguration of our 44th President--a glorious occasion--the people 
deserve better.
  Americans want a clean debt limit increase, which has been done 
numerous times, but the normal process by which the Treasury Secretary 
consults with the President and Congress seems to have hit a major 
roadblock. This obstructionist governing is based on a practice that 
seems to put ideology over pragmatism.
  The President has stated:
  ``The Administration supports a long-term increase in the debt limit 
that would increase certainty and economic stability . . . Instead of 
short-term management of self-inflicted fiscal crises, the President 
believes there is now an opportunity to strengthen the economy by 
putting the Nation on a sounder fiscal path. Progress has already been 
made towards that goal.''
  I would hope that my colleagues on the other side realize that these 
are trying times for the American people and brinkmanship is not the 
answer. This body must come up with a sensible solution to the pressing 
financial problems which plague our economy.
  It is truly shameful that during the beautiful transcendent inaugural 
weekend, in which many of my Houston constituents were able to come and 
enjoy Washington, DC, hospitality; capped off by the celebration of Dr. 
Martin Luther King's birthday, Congress is back to the same bad 
sportsmanship which has crippled this body to the point of gridlock.
  The measure provides funding authority for the first five months of 
2013, through May 2013, to allow the government to service debts and 
obligations which we have previously incurred.
  This legislation is filled with gimmickry because it would require 
House Members' salaries to be held in escrow if we House do not adopt a 
budget resolution and Senators' salaries to be held in escrow if the 
Senate doesn't do the same. It appears that my colleagues on the right 
have opted for form over substance.
  We cannot continue to hold our Nation hostage, keeping the benefits 
of recipients of Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare who have must 
have sleepless nights because they are worried about the disappearance 
of their monthly checks.
  I support a long-term increase in the debt limit that would increase 
certainty and economic stability. The bill before us this morning,

[[Page 496]]

H.R. 325, is a short-term measure with unnecessary complications, 
needlessly perpetuating uncertainty in the Nation's fiscal system, 
though I would note that the Obama administration has given somewhat 
tepid support, and only because H.R. 325 lifts the immediate threat of 
default and indicates that my Congressional Republican colleagues have 
backed off an insistence on holding the Nation's economy hostage to 
extract drastic cuts in Medicare, education, and other programs that 
middle-class families depend on.
  My colleagues want to buy time so that they can figure out how to 
squeeze the American taxpayer even more by devising bone-crunching cuts 
and slashes to entitlement programs--all of which is driven by rabid 
ideology--as opposed to sitting down and working with Democrats to come 
up with reasonable budget reforms which do not hurt seniors and the 
disadvantaged.
  That is why Madam Speaker, I submitted an Amendment to the Rules 
Committee yesterday which:
  ``Establishes that it is the sense of Congress that the safety net 
for the most vulnerable among us, the 15.1 percent of Americans living 
below the poverty line which includes 21 percent of our nation's 
children, must be protected in any budget negotiations.''
  Madam Speaker, Social Security is currently the only source of income 
for nearly two-thirds of older American households receiving benefits, 
and roughly one-third of those households depend on Social Security for 
nearly all of their income.
  Half of those 65 and older have annual incomes below $18,500, and 
many older Americans have experienced recent and significant losses in 
retirement savings, pensions, and home values. Today, every dollar of 
the average Social Security retirement benefit of about $14,800 is 
absolutely critical to the typical beneficiary.
  Contrary to some claims, Social Security is not the cause of our 
nation's deficit problem. Not only does the program operate 
independently, but it is prohibited from borrowing. Social Security 
must pay all benefits from its own trust fund.
  If there are insufficient funds to pay out full benefits, benefits 
are automatically reduced to the level supported by the program's own 
revenues.
  For reasons like these, I may not oppose a short-term solution to the 
debt limit and look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues 
here in the House and the Senate to provide certainty and foment 
stability for the economy.
  I would add that instead of short-term management of self-inflicted 
fiscal crises, I truly believe we have an opportunity to strengthen the 
economy by putting the Nation on a sounder fiscal path.
  Progress has already been made towards that goal. In 2011, the 
President signed into law $1.4 trillion in spending reductions, not 
counting additional savings from winding down the wars in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. We need to seize this template and move forward--not 
backwards.
  The fiscal agreement the President signed at the beginning of January 
increased revenue from high-income households by over $600 billion. 
Together with interest savings, these two steps will cut the deficit by 
more than $2.5 trillion over the next decade. We should have done more 
to address our revenue problem.
  The President has made clear that he remains willing to work with 
both parties in the Congress to budget responsibly and to achieve 
additional deficit reduction consistent with the principles of balance, 
shared growth, and shared opportunity.
  The President has also made clear that he will not have another 
debate with the Congress over whether or not they should pay the bills 
that they have already racked up through the laws that they passed. The 
President has made clear that the Congress has only two options--pay 
their bills, or fail to do so and put the Nation into default. And I am 
in complete agreement.
  According to the Bipartisan Policy Center, spending for Medicare and 
Medicaid is projected to increase from 21 percent of non-interest 
federal spending in 2010 to 31 percent by 2020. The numbers are wonkish 
sounding but in terms of real dollars, the increase is mammoth. That is 
why we must address the spending issue in earnest but not using the 
paltry monthly income of seniors to pay for yachts for millionaires.
  National spending on health care has grown about 2 percentage points 
per year faster than GDP over time. Federal revenues, however, have not 
kept pace, growing at roughly the same rate as GDP.
  As a result, federal deficits will be driven upward by federal health 
programs unless their rate of growth is tamed. This discrepancy must be 
dealt with sooner rather than later, but no matter how you couch it, 
there is no better translation than the word: b-r-o-k-e.
  I hasten to add that community health centers provide much needed, 
high-quality healthcare to over 20 million Americans. These centers are 
able to serve vulnerable portions of the American population, including 
racial and ethnic minorities, as well as rural and low-income 
Americans.
  I want to give some pertinent facts about my district and why the 
certainty provided by H.R. 325 is so important.
  The Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown Metropolitan Area consists of 10 
counties: Austin, Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, 
Liberty, Montgomery, San Jacinto and Waller.
  The Houston metro area:
  It ranks sixth among U.S. metropolitan statistical areas with a 
population of 5,867,489 as of mid-2009, and it covers more than 10,000 
square miles, and has a gross product of $403.8 billion, according to 
The Perryman Group. This area recorded 2.54 million payroll jobs in 
November 2010, more than the job counts of 31 U.S. states, including 
Arizona, Colorado and Alabama.
  The Houston economy has experienced a resurgence but let's remember 
the economic history:
  The recession hit Houston in September '08. Our region lost 152,800 
jobs through January '10. We began to recoup jobs starting in February 
that year and by October '11, the region had gained 153,000 jobs, or 
101.1 percent of what we lost in the recession.
  And though Houston faces some challenges in the near term, the long-
term outlook is bright. The challenges are those of managing growth 
rather than economic stagnation. The long-term outlook for the Houston 
metro area is positive, and steady growth will be the norm for Houston 
for the foreseeable future. What Houston cannot afford right now is 
continued uncertainty from Washington, D.C.
  Moreover, given the uncertainty of final funding decisions and the 
possibility that across-the-board spending cuts will occur in March 
unless Congress and the President can reach agreement to prevent the 
currently scheduled ``sequester,'' it is critical that we work towards 
bipartisan solutions to our nation's financial woes.
  Given the U.S. economy is showing signs of progress, it is crucial 
that we continue to fund government programs without interruption.
  Lastly, as a Senior Member of the Homeland Security and Judiciary 
Committees I understand the importance of the U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection mission to enforce drug, trade and travel laws in efforts to 
keep our borders safe; and the importance of ensuring that our nation 
remains safe from terrorists and others who would do harm to our 
nation.
  In summation, I urge my colleagues to reject this poll-driven 
exercise in futility and give a clean debt ceiling vote so that the 
American people can carry-on with the business of achieving prosperity.
  This is not a new law, new outlay, or some random exercise in the 
fulfillment of the Obama Doctrine. In fact, according to the 
Congressional Research Service, since March 1962, Congress has enacted 
76 separate measures that have altered the limit on federal debt. 
Typically, the Treasury Secretary consults with the President and 
Congress, and the limit has been subsequently raised to accommodate our 
fiscal needs.
  And I close with the sacred words from our Constitution. Section 4 of 
the 14th Amendment states in clear language that: ``the validity of the 
public debt of the United States . . . shall not be question.''
  And the President himself was transparent and sincere when he stated:
  ``H.R. 325 would temporarily allow the Congress to fund commitments 
to which it has already agreed. A temporary solution is not enough to 
remove the threat of default that Republicans in the Congress have held 
over the economy. The Congress should commit to paying its bills and 
pass a long-term clean debt limit increase that lifts self-inflicted 
and unnecessary uncertainty from the Nation's economy.''
  I echo President Obama's words and wish that this House gets its 
house in order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 39, the 
previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. MURPHY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at 
the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?

[[Page 497]]


  Mr. MURPHY of Florida. I am opposed in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Murphy of Florida moves to recommit the bill H.R. 325 
     to the Committee on Ways and Means with instructions to 
     report the same back to the House forthwith with the 
     following amendment:

       Add at the end the following new section:

     SEC. 4. PROTECTING VETERANS, TROOPS, AND SENIORS FROM BENEFIT 
                   CUTS AND COST INCREASES.

       A concurrent resolution on the budget shall not be taken 
     into account under section 3 if the concurrent resolution 
     provides for--
       (1) any cut in benefits for veterans, members of the Armed 
     Forces, or their families; or
       (2) any cut in benefits for seniors, including--
       (A) the elimination of guaranteed health insurance benefits 
     for seniors or people with disabilities;
       (B) the conversion of Medicare into a voucher plan that 
     provides limited payments to seniors or people with 
     disabilities to purchase health care in the private health 
     insurance market;
       (C) cuts in Medicaid health insurance benefits;
       (D) cuts in nursing home care; or
       (E) privatization of Social Security benefits.

  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I reserve a point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
  The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes in support of 
his motion.

                              {time}  1240

  Mr. MURPHY of Florida. Madam Speaker, this is the final amendment to 
the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If 
adopted, the bill will be amended and immediately proceed to final 
passage.
  I appreciate that the Republican leadership has put forward 
legislation that would raise the Nation's debt ceiling, agreeing that 
it is not an option for the United States to default on its 
obligations. I also support that Members of Congress should not be paid 
if they do not do their jobs, part of which is to pass a responsible 
budget, but I do not agree with the political gamesmanship of, once 
again, playing politics with our serious fiscal issues and using short-
term gimmicks rather than working to find long-term solutions. We need 
to stop playing games with the debt ceiling and spend our time and 
energy on job creation.
  I supported a clean debt limit bill. However, because in this version 
congressional pay has been tied directly to passing a budget, it is 
important to ensure that the budget that is passed is responsible and 
protects our most vulnerable citizens.
  My amendment would not kill the underlying legislation. It would 
merely add commonsense protections to the bill for members of our Armed 
Forces, our veterans, and our seniors from the budget-cutting process. 
Anyone who supports the underlying legislation has no reason to not 
also support this amendment. If adopted, the debt limit would still be 
raised to allow the government to pay its obligations through May 19, 
and Members of Congress would still have their pay withheld if they 
fail to agree to a budget resolution by April 15. The amendment simply 
clarifies that the budget resolution protects our troops, veterans, and 
seniors.
  I recently visited the West Palm Beach VA Medical Center and spoke 
with both veterans and staff. I heard their very real fears that their 
benefits, which they fought for, would be threatened by the political 
gamesmanship in Washington. I saw that same anxiety in the eyes of 
seniors I recently spoke to from Nettles Island on the Treasure Coast, 
who worry that cuts to Medicare and the privatization of Social 
Security could lead to a choice between a meal or medicine. After 
hearing these concerns, I expressed time and time again throughout my 
district that I could not understand why anyone would oppose amending 
the underlying legislation to ensure veterans, troops, and seniors are 
protected from devastating cuts.
  Madam Speaker, this amendment language should have the full support 
of the House. It simply states that we cannot cut benefits for veterans 
or members of the Armed Forces or cut benefits for seniors and that we 
will not gamble our grandparents' futures on Wall Street or turn 
Medicaid into a for-profit voucher system designed more to help out the 
big corporations than those who are struggling or disabled.
  I also want to express my disappointment that the underlying 
legislation is another short-term fix when our country needs long-term 
solutions. I spoke to several business groups last week, and they want 
stability from our government. If they had certainty, they would begin 
investing capital back into our economy rather than sitting on it. Our 
dysfunctional Congress is to blame for slowing our recovery.
  Now is the time to work together with courage and purpose and come to 
a grand bargain that will protect America's greatness for generations 
to come. Our Nation cannot afford to continue down the path of such 
fiscal irresponsibility. Such piecemeal approaches will not address our 
country's long-term fiscal health. Rather, we must look at reducing 
spending, generating revenue, lowering unemployment, addressing the 
long-term sustainability of Social Security and Medicare, and creating 
additional economic growth through job creation.
  A real fix to America's long-term fiscal issues and deficit reduction 
can only come by truly coming to the table without personal agendas and 
with the recognition that America needs less political gamesmanship and 
more leadership. Unfortunately, the underlying legislation in its 
current form falls short of what our country desperately needs.
  That is why I hope my amendment will be adopted here today as a first 
step towards putting aside partisanship and, instead, protecting our 
veterans, troops, and seniors. While the underlying legislation is not 
perfect and while it is not the grand bargain we were hoping for, it 
would show that there is willingness in the 113th Congress for 
compromise. As we move forward from the debate over the debt limit and 
on to other pressing fiscal issues, we can no longer settle for short-
term approaches to our public policy but, instead, work together to 
come to the grand bargains that will ensure America continues to be the 
greatest country for generations to come.
  Madam Speaker, my amendment is an opportunity to show the American 
people that this Congress is willing to work together and compromise to 
address our fiscal issues and to protect our troops, veterans, and 
seniors. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of my commonsense 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I withdraw my point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The reservation is withdrawn.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, as I read this motion to 
recommit, it says that the concurrent resolution on the budget shall 
not do this, shall not do that, shall do this, shall do that. This 
debate belongs when we do the budget. We're not at the budget yet.
  Look, I'm glad people are excited about actually debating a budget. 
That's wonderful. Let's hold that enthusiasm until we actually are 
debating a budget. The purpose of this bill is to actually get us to 
have that debate, to have a budget.
  What's frustrating for Democrats and Republicans in the House, I 
would like to say, is that the other body hasn't been doing a budget 
for 4 years. The minority, to their credit, brought a budget to the 
floor. The majority has brought a budget to the floor and passed it 
both of the last 2 years. The Senate, no budget. So what we decided to 
do was to take a piece of legislation from the minority, from a member 
of the minority--the No Budget, No Pay legislation--and add it to this 
so that we can get to debating this Nation's fiscal house, which is not 
in order, Madam Speaker.

[[Page 498]]

  So all I would say is we should defeat this motion to recommit. It is 
premature, and it is prejudging a budget that does not yet exist. So 
let's get rid of this motion to recommit and be serious about this 
short-term extension so that we can make sure that we have the debate 
we deserve.
  How are we going to prevent a debt crisis? How are we going to 
balance the budget? How are we going to have growth and opportunity in 
this society? How are we going to save Medicare? How are we going to 
make sure that we can pay our bills and stop our government from living 
beyond its means? How are we going to secure a future for our children 
and our grandchildren?
  That's the debate surrounding the budget. This is premature. It 
applies to a budget that hasn't even been written yet and which will be 
written on a baseline that doesn't even exist yet. So let's defeat this 
motion to recommit--it's silly, it's partisan, it's process--and move 
on to the underlying bill.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MURPHY of Florida. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 151, 
nays 277, not voting 3, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 29]

                               YEAS--151

     Andrews
     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Carney
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Davis (CA)
     DeFazio
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Markey
     Matheson
     McCollum
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Schakowsky
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--277

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

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Cardenas
     Rush
     Waters

                              {time}  1310

  Messrs. LATTA, OLSON, PERRY, Ms. BASS, Messrs. SERRANO, ADERHOLT, Ms. 
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Messrs. PAYNE, McDERMOTT, Ms. EDWARDS, Mr. VEASEY, 
Ms. BROWN of Florida, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Messrs. DANNY 
K. DAVIS of Illinois, CUMMINGS, McGOVERN, CARSON of Indiana, CLAY, 
RICHMOND, AL GREEN of Texas, PERLMUTTER, THOMPSON of California, Mrs. 
McCARTHY of New York, Messrs. MORAN, SCHIFF, RUPPERSBERGER, and 
BLUMENAUER changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. HUFFMAN, POLIS of Colorado, McNERNEY, GUTIERREZ, and BEN RAY 
LUJAN of New Mexico changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  Mr. COHEN changed his vote from ``present'' to ``nay.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Madam 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 285, 
noes 144, not voting 3, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 30]

                               AYES--285

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amodei
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bera (CA)
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Calvert

[[Page 499]]


     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cicilline
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Connolly
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cotton
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     Delaney
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Doggett
     Duckworth
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Ellmers
     Enyart
     Esty
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hahn
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (WA)
     Hensarling
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holding
     Horsford
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Israel
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Keating
     Kelly
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Kuster
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Long
     Lowenthal
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lummis
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     Markey
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Meng
     Messer
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Neal
     Noem
     Nolan
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     O'Rourke
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Perry
     Peters (CA)
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Price (GA)
     Quigley
     Radel
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schneider
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Takano
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vela
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Walz
     Waxman
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--144

     Amash
     Andrews
     Bachmann
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Capuano
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Collins (GA)
     Conyers
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DesJarlais
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Garcia
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Grayson
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (NV)
     Herrera Beutler
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Massie
     Matsui
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Meeks
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Mullin
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Negrete McLeod
     Neugebauer
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (MI)
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Rohrabacher
     Roybal-Allard
     Ryan (OH)
     Salmon
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stockman
     Swalwell (CA)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Turner
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Welch
     Williams
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth
     Yoho

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Cardenas
     Green, Gene
     Rush

                              {time}  1320

  Messrs. BROOKS of Alabama, DUNCAN of Tennessee and GUTIERREZ changed 
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 30, had I 
been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

                          ____________________