[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 941-950]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




     PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 444, REQUIRE PRESIDENTIAL 
                     LEADERSHIP AND NO DEFICIT ACT

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 48 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                               H. Res. 48

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 444) to require that, if the President's 
     fiscal year 2014 budget does not achieve balance in a fiscal 
     year covered by such budget, the President shall submit a 
     supplemental unified budget by April 1, 2013, which 
     identifies a fiscal year in which balance is achieved, and 
     for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided among and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on the Budget or their respective designees. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as 
     read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are 
     waived. No amendment to the bill shall be in order except 
     those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may be 
     offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
     order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion 
     of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee 
     shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
     amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments 
     thereto to final passage without intervening motion except 
     one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 
1 hour.


                             General Leave

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOODALL. For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 
minutes to my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I 
yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this 
resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, we're here today, as you heard from the Clerk, on House 
Resolution 48, which provides a structured rule for consideration of 
H.R. 444, which is the Require a PLAN Act. This is a resolution that 
will require that the President, if he doesn't submit a budget that 
ultimately comes to balance, submit then a supplementary budget that 
shows how he would bring the budget to balance.
  As you know, Mr. Speaker, we've been grappling with serious budget 
challenges throughout this President's administration. We go back to FY 
2009, the very first year of the administration; the deficit tripled 
the previous record-high deficit in this country to $1.4 trillion. It 
was $1.3 trillion in FY

[[Page 942]]

2010, $1.3 trillion in FY 2011, $1.2 trillion in FY 2012. And, Mr. 
Speaker, there's no plan that the administration has produced to get us 
from where we are--fiscal irresponsibility--to a point in the future of 
fiscal responsibility.
  Mr. Speaker, we've been doing our part here in the House. We've been 
proud to work together across the aisle in order to pass budgets that 
tackle those hard challenges that are ahead of us. If you read the 
President's comments, Mr. Speaker, you will see that he recognizes the 
challenges are hard. The question is: Are we going to deal with those 
or not?
  I hold here, Mr. Speaker, a speech that the President made to the 
Democratic National Convention on September 6, 2012, where he said 
this:

       I will use the money that we're no longer spending on war 
     to pay down our debt and put more people back to work.

  And my notes here said that it was followed by extended cheers and 
applause. I expect my friend from Massachusetts supports that spirit 
wholeheartedly, that, ``I will use the money we're no longer spending 
on war to pay down our debt and put more people back to work.''
  But, Mr. Speaker, I also hold in my hand a transcript from the Budget 
Committee, on which I have the pleasure of sitting, when we had the 
President's Treasury Secretary come before the Budget Committee to 
explain the budget, and I said this:

       Can you tell me just in simple terms--in true or false 
     terms, this budget never, ever, ever reduces the debt, is 
     that right?

  Treasury Secretary Geithner:

       Uh, that is correct. It does not go far enough to bring 
     down the debt, not just as a share of the economy, but 
     overall. You're right.

  I then said this:

       It doesn't bring down the debt at all.

  Mr. Speaker, that's the conflict that we face here as a people, as a 
country. Not as Republicans, not as Democrats, but as a people. On the 
one hand, what our politicians are saying is we're going to use the 
money to pay down our debt. But what the reality is is that proposals 
are coming out today that never, ever, ever pay down a penny of debt.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, if you want to see that for yourself, you can look. 
The President's budgets each year are posted online on the OMB Web 
site. In fact, the very first one he submitted--I hold the cover page 
here--it was called ``A New Era of Responsibility.'' ``A New Era of 
Responsibility'' is the first budget that the President ever submitted. 
But as I go through that budget, Mr. Speaker, what I see is projections 
for 2020, for 2030, for 2040, for 2060, and for 2080.
  Mr. Speaker, hear that. You have got young children--2020, 2030, 
2040, 2060, and 2080--and in each one of those years, according to the 
President's budget, not only does the budget never balance under his 
plan, but it continues to get worse. 2020, 2030, 2040, 2050, 2060, 
2080--the President's budget. And I think that comes as news to so many 
of us, Mr. Speaker, I confess, because I've listened to the speeches, 
just as my friend from Massachusetts has, where we talk about getting 
the deficit under control, where we talk about paying down the debt. 
Only when you get into the plan, do you see that we never pay down one 
penny.
  So this rule today, Mr. Speaker, would allow us to take up a bill 
that would require the President for the very first time to submit a 
balanced budget. It doesn't have to balance the way I would balance it. 
It doesn't have to balance the way you would balance it. But to submit 
a balanced budget. And as you know, Mr. Speaker, the statute actually 
required the President submit his budget yesterday. He's going to miss 
that deadline, but I'm expecting it soon and I'm looking forward to 
reading it soon. It's so that we actually give the American people a 
plan.

                              {time}  1310

  I want to say--because we heard it in the Rules Committee last night, 
and I believe my friend from Massachusetts brought it up and he was 
absolutely right--the history of debt and deficits in this country, Mr. 
Speaker, is not a mark of shame on the Democratic Party and it is not a 
mark of shame on the Republican Party; it is a mark of shame on all of 
us collectively.
  Candidly, you and I here, Mr. Speaker, in the big freshman class of 
2010, I'm less interested in finding out who to blame and I'm more 
interested in finding out who has a solution to solve the problem. This 
House passed a solution to solve the problem. I'd like to see the 
Senate create a solution. I'd like to see the President create a 
solution. I'd like to see us discuss that solution as the American 
people, Mr. Speaker.
  There were 14 amendments submitted to this piece of legislation, Mr. 
Speaker. We heard testimony on that in the Rules Committee yesterday. 
Unfortunately, six of those 14 amendments were nongermane; we were not 
able to make those in order. But we did make in order three Republican 
amendments, one Democratic amendment, and one bipartisan amendment. In 
fact, all the Members who came to the Rules Committee yesterday to 
testify on behalf of their amendments, we were able to make those 
amendments in order.
  Mr. Speaker, all this bill does, should it become law, is require 
that if the President doesn't submit a balanced budget--it's certainly 
my great hope that he will, but if he doesn't, he share with the 
American people--again, not in 5 years, not in 10 years--whatever 
number he believes is the right way to set priorities, tell the 
American people what steps he will take to get us back on track.
  Candidly, Mr. Speaker, it's unconscionable that we can look at 
projections going out to 2080 and have folks never, ever, ever pay down 
one penny of debt. Contrast that with what we did here in the House of 
Representatives, where with a budget that passed this House, the 
bipartisan vote that passed that budget, passed the only budget that 
passed anywhere in this town, not only would we have balanced the 
budget in that time frame, Mr. Speaker, we would have paid back every 
penny of our $16.4 trillion Federal debt.
  That's no small conversation. It's a conversation that's long overdue 
on this House floor. It's a conversation that has been too long ignored 
by both Democrats and Republicans, and I'm pleased to be here today to 
take that up with my friend from Massachusetts, and then later on, the 
underlying bill.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia, my good 
friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this restrictive 
rule and to vote ``no'' on the underlying bill.
  The process here is awful. The bill before us was not even considered 
by the Budget Committee. They didn't hold a single hearing, no markup, 
and on a party-line vote last night the Rules Committee denied Mr. Van 
Hollen, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, the opportunity to 
offer a meaningful substitute. The Rules Committee also, on a party 
line, voted against an open rule. To all of the Republican freshmen and 
sophomores who campaigned on the need for openness and transparency, by 
voting for this rule, you are officially part of the problem.
  This bill before us isn't a meaningful attempt to address the budget; 
it's a gimmick wrapped in talking points inside a press release.
  Two weeks ago, this House passed the so-called ``No Budget, No Pay 
Act,'' then they went on another recess. There wasn't a holiday, mind 
you. I guess it was the Super Bowl recess. Now they're back with 
today's bill. It calls on the President to tell Congress when his 
budget will come into balance. If his budget doesn't say when it will 
come into balance, then he must submit a supplemental statement telling 
Congress when it will come into balance.
  Why are we doing this? Because the President is late submitting his 
budget for the next fiscal year. Okay, fine. The President should 
submit a budget on time, and I support that. But lost in all of this 
Republican budget Kabuki theater is the truth: the reason the 
administration is late with their budget is

[[Page 943]]

because they just spent months trying to avert the disaster that was 
the fiscal cliff.
  As the Speaker was trying in vain to corral House Republicans into 
doing the right thing, we had Plan B and Plan C and Plan--who knows 
what. Finally, we reached a deal on January 1, technically after we 
went over the cliff. In the meantime, back in the real world, we are 
less than 24 calendar days away from the disastrous sequester taking 
effect--less than 24 calendar days from massive, arbitrary, and 
devastating cuts to defense and nondefense discretionary programs, cuts 
to jobs programs and medical research and education, cuts to military 
personnel and law enforcement, cuts that will cost jobs and do real 
harm to the American economy as it struggles to recover.
  And the reality is that we don't even have that much time. We only 
have 9 legislative days left in February to address the issue, 9 days 
to negotiate a trillion-dollar deal with the Senate and the President. 
And instead of a meaningful plan to address the crisis that we need to 
avert, we have this nonsense before us today. This is no way to govern.
  The disturbing truth is that many Republicans seem downright giddy 
when it comes to the sequester cuts. There is news story after news 
story about how the Republicans are going to allow the sequester to 
take effect. In the Rules Committee last night, the author of this 
bill, the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Price, couldn't support these 
cuts fast enough. I was shocked.
  Mr. Speaker, it was only last week that the economic numbers for the 
fourth quarter of 2012 were released. Unexpectedly, we saw a 
contraction in those numbers, a contraction fueled by a massive 
reduction in defense spending. What do you know: huge cuts in 
government spending during a fragile economic recovery damage economic 
growth. The Republican response is to double down on this stupid.
  These Republican games of Russian roulette with the American economy 
must come to an end. It is time to replace short-term partisan 
political interests with the greater good.
  The President today is asking us to consider a thoughtful, balanced 
plan to stop the sequester. I urge the Republican leadership to bring 
that plan to the floor of the House for a vote as soon as possible. 
That's what the American people want and that's what they deserve: a 
real plan. The bill before us today isn't it, and I urge my colleagues 
to reject it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. I thank my friend from Massachusetts because he's 
highlighting exactly what our challenges are and exactly why it's so 
important that we pass both the rule and H.R. 444 today. He went 
through item after item after item that have absolutely tied our 
economy up in knots. Short-term problems and short-term solutions are 
trumping the discussion of long-term problems and long-term solutions.
  The sequester that he mentioned, Mr. Speaker, do you know that it was 
the month of May last year that this House first passed a replacement 
to the sequester? Now, as you know and as history has recorded, the 
Senate never acted on any replacement of a sequester, and now we talk 
about what happened on January 1 as if it was something that was 
created by this House, as if that fiscal cliff was something that this 
House invented. In fact, we have a very proud history, bipartisan 
history, of looking further down the road to try to find the best 
answers and the best solutions to very serious problems. But we can't 
do it alone, Mr. Speaker.
  One of the great successes we've had just early in this year--and by 
``we,'' I mean this entire House, the people's House--is that we appear 
to have persuaded the Senate to pass a budget for the first time in 4 
years. All indication is that this year, unlike last year and the year 
before that and the year before that, this year they're going to pass a 
budget to lay out their plan.
  But what does it say, Mr. Speaker, about this House, about this 
process, about the future of this country that it's controversial 
whether or not the President of the United States should introduce a 
budget that balances ever? That's the debate today, Mr. Speaker. That's 
how out of touch Washington has become. That's how confused the 
speeches have been written. We're debating whether or not the President 
should introduce a budget that ever balances. I'm advocating, yes, he 
should. Others are advocating, no, that shouldn't be a requirement; 
when you take the oath to fully execute the laws of the land, when you 
take the oath to faithfully protect and defend the United States of 
America, it shouldn't be a requirement that you balance budgets. In 
fact, you should be free, not just for 10 years, not just for 20 years, 
not just for 40 years, not just for 80 years, but forever to deficit 
spend, to borrow from a generation of children and a generation of 
grandchildren to pay for our wants today, taking away from their needs 
tomorrow.

                              {time}  1320

  It's controversial, Mr. Speaker. We're going to argue about it.
  This rule debate is going to come to a close in 40 minutes and we're 
going to vote. Then if the rule passes, we're going to go into a vote 
on the underlying bill. There are going to be ``no'' votes on the board 
that say, no, the President should never have to explain to the 
American people how we're going to make our fiscal tomorrow better than 
our fiscal today.
  I would like to change his mind, Mr. Speaker, but for now I'm going 
to focus on changing the minds right here in this Chamber. Because if 
there is anything that unites us in this body, rather than divides us, 
it is a true love of this country. And I challenge anyone, Mr. Speaker, 
to define their love of our freedoms and of our country in a way that 
allows us to continue borrowing from the next generation forever.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to submit for the Record a letter sent to the Honorable 
Paul Ryan, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, from the 
Executive Office of the President in the Office of Management and 
Budget which explains why the President's budget for this year is 
delayed--because of the theatrics that my friends on the other side 
forced us to go through to avoid going over a fiscal cliff. So I think 
it's understandable why the budget may be a little late.
  And I would say to the gentleman, submitting a budget is not 
controversial. What is controversial to me is the fact that so many of 
my friends on the other side want to go over this sequester cliff in 
which millions of jobs will be lost. That to me is controversial. We 
should be about protecting jobs and creating jobs.
  My friends have budgetary plans that would throw people out of work, 
and I find that unconscionable. I find that unconscionable. We should 
be about lifting this country up, not trying to put people down.
  And the plans that have been proposed by my friends on the other 
side, including this kind of giddiness about the prospect of going over 
the sequestration cliff, would cost millions of people in this country 
jobs. It would hurt our economy.
  That's not the way we want to govern. That's what is controversial on 
our side. We don't want people to lose their jobs. We want people to 
keep their jobs, and we want to create an economy that creates more 
jobs.

         Executive Office of the President, Office of Management 
           and Budget,
                                 Washington, DC, January 11, 2013.
     Hon. Paul Ryan,
     Chairman, Committee on the Budget, U.S. House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Ryan: Thank you for your letter dated January 
     9, 2013, requesting information on when the Administration 
     will submit the President's fiscal year (FY) 2014 Budget.
       For over a year and a half, the Administration has been 
     working with Congress to forge agreement on a plan that would 
     both grow our economy and significantly reduce the deficit. 
     The Administration continues to seek a balanced approach to 
     further deficit reduction that cuts spending in a responsible 
     way while also raising revenues.
       As you know, the protracted ``fiscal cliff' negotiations 
     that led to enactment of H.R. 8,

[[Page 944]]

     the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, created 
     considerable uncertainty about revenue and spending for 2013 
     and beyond. The Act resolved a significant portion of this 
     uncertainty by making permanent the temporary rates on 
     taxable income at or below $400,000 for individual filers and 
     $450,000 for married individuals filing jointly; permanently 
     indexing the Alternative Minimum Tax exemption to the 
     Consumer Price Index; extending emergency unemployment 
     benefits and Federal finding for extended benefits for 
     unemployed workers for one year; continuing current Medicare 
     payment rates for physicians' services through December 31, 
     2013; extending farm bill policies and programs through 
     September 30, 2013; and providing a postponement of the 
     Budget Control Act's sequestration for two months. However, 
     because these issues were not resolved until the American 
     Taxpayer Relief Act was enacted on January 2, 2013, the 
     Administration was forced to delay some of its FY 2014 Budget 
     preparations, which in turn will delay the Budget's 
     submission to Congress.
       The Administration is working diligently on our budget 
     request. We will submit it to Congress as soon as possible.
           Sincerely,
                                                Jeffrey D. Zients,
                                   Deputy Director for Management.

  Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New York, the ranking member of the Rules Committee, 
Ms. Slaughter.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I do love my country, and my country is 
begging me, as I'm sure it is all other Members of Congress, to for 
heaven's sake get some of this taken care of and have some certainty.
  Talking with constituents just this morning, they were saying they 
simply don't know what to do. And what we're doing here again is just 
theater, as my colleague pointed out. This isn't a plan. It's a 
gimmick, and it has wasted valuable time.
  CBS News reported last year that it cost $24 million a week to 
operate the House of Representatives. On behalf of the taxpayers who 
pay those bills, we should be debating some serious legislation and 
come up with serious answers to our Nation's problems.
  And everybody has known from their grammar school days that the way 
we pass a bill is that the House proposes a bill, the Senate proposes a 
bill, they go through the committee processes, they are passed on 
through the committee, the subcommittees, then the major committee, 
then to the Rules Committee, in our case, and then we have a conference 
and we send it to the President. We don't do that anymore.
  The last two bills we dealt with on this floor just came directly to 
the Rules Committee. There was no committee action whatsoever, there 
was no discussion, there was no input.
  And yesterday, what really I think grieves me most is that there was 
a wonderful substitute put forward with great sincerity by the ranking 
member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Van Hollen. I think he's respected 
by all sides, and most of this country, for his wisdom and for his 
acuity. But could they put his substitute in order? No. They said they 
had to have a waiver. Well, that's what the Rules Committee is for. 
That's what the Rules Committee does.
  The Budget Committee itself has had at least 18 waivers in the last 
term. It just defies imagination. But this is $24 million again this 
week, where we're brought in from all of the corners of the United 
States at an expense to stand here and do absolutely nothing.
  If they want to know what the President wants to do, they should call 
him up and ask him. We don't have to do a resolution or a bill on the 
floor of the House to find that out if that's so important. What a 
crazy thing that we could do in this time of communication to say this 
is the way we're going to try to find out something--and find out what?
  The drastic across-the-board spending cuts are going to take effect 
on March 1. Now, the week after next we're taking another week off. We 
work about two and a half days here. It's really unfortunate. I think I 
can use that word without being called down, but I have much stronger 
words in my head. But instead of solving that looming crisis, again, 
they propose legislation that tries to change the subject. Try as they 
might, they can't hide from the fact that they are failing to provide 
help when American people need it most.
  Mr. Speaker, we are days away from a serious self-inflicted wound.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlelady an additional 2 minutes.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Thank you.
  If the pending sequester were to take effect, there will be such 
drastic cuts to important programs, not only domestically, but as you 
heard Leon Panetta, Secretary of Defense, say, it would ``hollow out'' 
the military and leave our military fighting with one hand tied behind 
its back. Why would we do that? For no earthly reason. Why in the world 
would we put the United States through that? Taken together, these 
cuts, as was said before, would destroy jobs, reverse our economic 
recovery, just reverse it, and destroy the middle class.
  To get a glimpse of what drastic spending cuts would do to our 
economy, just look back to the end of 2012. As leading economists, the 
White House Council of Economic Advisers and President Obama have all 
pointed out, the drastic spending cuts at the end of last year are the 
leading causes--the leading causes--of our recent economic stagnation. 
Should the sequester take effect, our economy would suffer even more, 
and jobs would be lost as deeper and deeper spending cuts take effect.
  Is that the path the majority wants to walk down? Because if they 
keep spending our time debating stupid legislation like this, we're 
going to find ourselves on that path before too long.
  I agree with Mr. McGovern that many of our colleagues seem to want to 
go off that cliff for some kind of foolish exercise, knowing full well 
what is going to happen, and that is really shameful.
  Yesterday, our Democratic colleagues and I proposed legislation that 
would stop the sequester with Mr. Van Hollen's substitute, but, no, 
they would not do that. It was simply tossed aside.
  The majority chose to move forward with this restrictive and partisan 
process, closed rule again, that ignores the problems before us and 
moves forward with a political gimmick.
  As the clock continues to tick, I urge my colleagues to stop those 
gimmicks and get back to work. Again, the people I spoke with just 
today are saying over and over again some certainty has to be in this 
government. People have to know what the economic situation is going to 
be. We do not want to play Russian roulette in here with the American 
economy day after day and week after week.
  I urge my colleagues to stop wasting valuable time and let's provide 
that certainty.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I just want to say to my friend from New York, for whom I do have 
tremendous respect and value her counsel, to call this a stupid piece 
of legislation I think really misses the point about what we're doing 
here.
  I would encourage you to ask your constituents in New York, and, Mr. 
Speaker, I would encourage you to ask your constituents back home, do 
folks realize, because I didn't, that in the four years that the 
President has been President of the United States, the budgets that he 
has introduced come to balance never?
  My friends on the other side are making a persuasive case, Mr. 
Speaker, for why it is they would support doing things with different 
priorities than I would support doing things. And that's absolutely 
going to be true. When we debate the budget resolution, we're going to 
have different approaches for getting to balance. But the President's 
budgets never get there. If we give him every spending cut he asks for, 
if we give him every tax increase he asks for, if we do absolutely 
everything that the budget that he is required by law to submit 
requests, we will begin to pay down the first penny of debt never.

                              {time}  1330

  In fact, if we do absolutely everything that the budget he is 
required by law to submit to us asks, the debt will continue to grow 
forever.

[[Page 945]]

  I agree with so much of what my friends on the other side are saying 
about the sequester, about the fiscal cliff. That's why we acted in May 
in this body. That's why we acted in August in this body on this tax 
bill. That's why we passed another sequester replacement in August. 
That's why we passed another one in December. I agree. But can't we 
also agree that if you're going to be Commander in Chief of America, if 
you're going to be the President of the United States, if you're going 
to uphold and defend the Constitution--and we have our former Joint 
Chief of Staff Chairman telling us that our greatest national security 
threat is our growing debt--shouldn't it be fair to ask the President 
to tell us when, if ever, he plans to begin paying back the first 
penny?
  Mr. Speaker, it's not a stupid piece of legislation that we're 
dealing with today. What's almost laughably ridiculous is that it's 
controversial.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOODALL. I believe the gentleman has much more time. I will be 
happy to reserve the balance of my time, though, and allow my friend to 
control.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter).
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I see a number of my colleagues have come to speak, so 
I'm going to be as brief as I can.
  I know that the chair of the Budget Committee has said that he can 
balance the budget in 10 years, which most economists and people say 
would certainly throw us into the worst depression, worse than 1929.
  I believe that what we are doing here--I can't prove it--but my 
suspicions are that this is something intended to cover that. They're 
trying to get the President into that trick box or something to try to 
do the same thing.
  Don't go, Mr. President. We can do better than that.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The issue is not whether the President should submit a budget. He 
should. And he would have submitted a budget by now, but because of the 
theatrics that my friends on the other side put us through dealing with 
the fiscal cliff, which was just solved on January 1, things are a 
little bit delayed. The issue is why is the House wasting time on this 
while the sword of the sequester hangs over the American people?
  The President can submit any budget he wants. That's what the 
President has the right to do, just like George Bush submitted whatever 
budget he wanted to do.
  We have a job here in this House, and that is to address this looming 
fiscal crisis called the sequester. What we're doing here today is 
doing nothing at all to move that ball forward.
  In less than a month, arbitrary cuts are going to go into effect, 
people are going to lose their jobs, and this economy is going to go 
into a deeper slump. For the life of me, I can't understand why there's 
not more urgency. We shouldn't be taking vacations. We actually should 
be working here and trying to resolve this. This is stupid legislation 
because it is not addressing the crisis. It is doing nothing to advance 
the cause of trying to get to a solution. This is just a press release. 
This is yet another gimmick.
  I think the reason why Congress and especially the House of 
Representatives is held in such low regard is because we spend so much 
time on trivial matters debating passionately, and we skip over 
debating the important things. We ought to be doing something important 
here today. We ought to be trying to avert this sequestration. We ought 
to be trying to keep people in their jobs. And we ought to be trying to 
create an economy that will create more jobs, not this theater.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, there's a reason that we're spending so 
much time talking about things other than the underlying bill, other 
than the rule. The reason is because the rule is a good rule, and the 
bill is a good bill. We can use this time for the political theater 
that my friend from Massachusetts appears to disdain, but I would say 
he's got a talent for it and he should not disdain it so rapidly.
  Mr. Speaker, we handled the sequester in May. I hope whenever my 
friend from Massachusetts refers to his friends on the other side, he 
means the other side of the Chamber, not the other side of this House, 
because we, you and I, acted, Mr. Speaker, to solve those issues.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOODALL. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. McGOVERN. This is the 113th Congress. We haven't done one thing 
to solve this fiscal crisis that's looming on March 1st. This is the 
113th.
  Under the Constitution, when a new Congress begins, we have to start 
all over again. Okay?
  Mr. WOODALL. Reclaiming my time, my friend is exactly right. Of all 
of the multiple efforts that we did last year that were all rejected by 
the other side, we have not recreated those efforts again this year. 
He's exactly right.
  What we have done, however, is created a pathway that's going to 
produce the first budget on the Senate side, the first opportunity for 
the bodies to come together in conference.
  My friend from New York tells us about, I'm just a bill and what 
schoolchildren are learning all over America. Mr. Speaker, they're 
going to have to learn on TV because they have not seen it in this 
town. We can't. We can't go to conference on a budget unless the Senate 
passes one. And this year, Mr. Speaker, as governed by the rule book, 
the United States Constitution that I have right here in my hand, we're 
going to be able to get that done. That's the kind of work this House 
is doing. That's the groundwork that we're laying.
  My friend from New York is exactly right, Mr. Speaker, when she says 
that this body, led by Chairman Ryan on the Budget Committee, is going 
to produce a budget so serious and so responsible, it's going to come 
to balance, the balance the American people are demanding, faster than 
any other budget we have seen in this President's administration.
  All we're asking, Mr. Speaker: Doesn't it seem reasonable to let the 
President submit any budget he wants to? We don't want to change the 
budget he's submitting at all, but just to share with the American 
people because they don't know when they come to balance.
  Who knew, Mr. Speaker, when the budget was entitled a ``New Era of 
Responsibility,'' that it wasn't going to come to balance in 80 years? 
Who knew? I didn't. There are people in this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, who 
did not know that in 4 years of his Presidency, this President has 
never, ever--assuming a world where he gets everything that he wants--
crafted a plan that begins to pay back the very first penny of our 
debt. That's dangerous, Mr. Speaker.
  This bill can put a stop to that process. That is why I know it's 
going to get support here in the House.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this bill does nothing. It does absolutely 
nothing. It's a press release.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to ensure that the House votes on Mr. Van 
Hollen's replacement for the sequester, which was blocked yesterday in 
the Rules Committee.
  My friend from Georgia talks about this being a good rule and a good 
process. This bill was not even considered by the Budget Committee, 
which is the committee of jurisdiction. It had no hearing. It had no 
markup. It mysteriously appeared at the Rules Committee. We wanted an 
open rule, and we were denied an open rule. Mr. Van Hollen actually had 
a substantive amendment to replace the sequester. That was denied.
  So I want to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland, the 
ranking member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Van Hollen, to discuss his 
amendment.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, Mr. McGovern, who 
said it exactly right. This unfortunately is another political gimmick

[[Page 946]]

we've seen from our Republican colleagues, and it is exactly why the 
American people hate this Congress so much.
  Rather than doing something to create jobs, rather than doing 
something to help support the economy, this does absolutely nothing 
other than point fingers at the President because his budget is a 
little late and then tell the President that he has to submit a budget 
that meets the Republican requirements rather than what we've done with 
every other President, which gives them the ability to present the 
budget they like.
  With respect to the delay, our Republican colleagues know very well 
what the cause of that delay was. The cause of the delay was we were 
working very hard to try and avoid the fiscal cliff, which would have 
hurt jobs and the economy.
  I'm not surprised some of our Republican House colleagues have 
forgotten about that because they overwhelmingly voted against the 
fiscal cliff agreement, which by the way was supported by the 
overwhelming majority of Senate Republicans. But here in the House, 
Republicans in great numbers said that they would rather risk the 
economy and risk jobs than ask the very wealthiest Americans to pay a 
little bit more.

                              {time}  1340

  That's why the fiscal cliff agreement took so long. We didn't get it 
done until January 2. I would hope my colleagues on the Budget 
Committee know, if you're putting together a budget, you need to know 
what you're spending, but you also need to know what your revenues are. 
Until we were able to get that agreement, the President didn't know 
what the revenues were. Nonpartisan groups, like the Congressional 
Budget Office and Joint Tax, were also delayed in their assessments. 
These are nonpartisan groups.
  Now, the shame of it is, instead of playing these political games, we 
should do what my colleagues have said we should do in that we should 
be focused on avoiding the sequester--the meat-ax, across-the-board 
cuts. This House has taken no action in this Congress, in this 113th 
Congress, to deal with that, so we on the Democratic side said, Hey, 
let's give our Members an opportunity to vote on something to replace 
the sequester and to do it in a balanced way so that we don't hurt the 
economy and so that we don't put jobs at risk.
  We brought a substitute amendment to the Rules Committee that would 
have prevented those across-the-board cuts, that would have replaced 
them with balanced and sensible alternatives like, for example, 
eliminating direct payments in agricultural subsidies, like getting rid 
of the taxpayer subsidies for big oil companies, that we would replace 
the across-the-board, meat-ax cuts, which would do great harm to our 
economy, with those sensible measures.
  The response from our Republican colleagues: You don't get a vote. 
You don't get a vote. They rushed to the floor a measure that hadn't 
had a single hearing, that did not go through the regular order; and in 
keeping with that philosophy, we don't even get a vote on something 
that is important to the American people, which is to replace the 
across-the-board sequester, which we know is going to hurt jobs because 
we just heard from the last quarter economic report that even the fear 
of those across-the-board cuts was having a damaging impact on the 
economy, even the fear of it. Now, within less than a month, it's going 
to happen, and here we're talking about a political gimmick bill 
instead of something that does something real, and we are not even 
allowed a chance to vote on a proposal to replace the sequester.
  Vote against it if you want. Vote against it. That's the way the 
democratic process works, but allow this House to work its will.
  When this House worked its will, we were able to get a fiscal 
agreement passed and were able to avoid going over the cliff and 
hurting the economy. Let's do the same thing now. Let's just have a 
vote, up or down, on the merits of a substitute proposal rather than 
playing games with this very unfortunate proposal that does nothing but 
play politics.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to say to my 
friends that I haven't actually mentioned that the President's budget 
was late. You're exactly right. He did miss the statutory deadline. 
He's not going to make it on time. In fact, the story is that it's not 
going to get here until March. In the years that I've had a voting 
card, he has never submitted a budget on time. I'm not asking him to 
get it here on time. I am only asking him, when it gets here, would he 
tell us when it's going to balance.
  With that, I would like to yield 4 minutes to a colleague on the 
Rules Committee, the gentleman from Texas, Dr. Burgess.
  Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  This is an important discussion that we're having today, and I urge 
my colleagues to vote for the rule and to vote for the underlying bill 
that follows.
  Look, the President is going to be here talking to us next week. 
He'll deliver his State of the Union address. He will do so without a 
plan on the table. There will be no budget. We will not know about the 
proposals that are put forward as to whether or not they're reasonable 
in the context of outlays and allocations. We just simply don't know.
  The underlying bill that is being discussed today is that, when the 
President does submit that plan, when the administration does submit 
that plan, if that plan does not come into balance within a reasonable 
period of time--10 years, I think, any American would say would be a 
reasonable period of time--give us an idea as to when you think that 
will happen. After all, when there was a campaign being run in 2008, 
the Presidential candidate for the Democrats said that he'd cut the 
deficit in half in 4 years, and we're still waiting. We would like to 
see the plan that is going to achieve these goals.
  We're also hearing a lot of talk today about the sequester. It's not 
the purpose of this legislation to deal with the sequester. We did have 
reconciliation bills on the floor of this House in May and then again 
in December. We had a bill dealing with the expiration of the Tax Codes 
right before the August recess. So there were opportunities to talk 
about the fiscal cliff. I, for one, felt that the delay in the 
sequester on January 1 was not in the country's best interest.
  These were the cuts that the Congress promised to the American 
people. When the debt limit was raised in August of 2011, this was the 
promise that was made, and it was a promise that was made by the 
President. It was proposed by people within the administration. The 
bill was signed into law by the President. The President cannot now 
come back and retroactively veto a bill that has already been signed. 
This is settled law, and these are cuts on which the American people 
are depending. They're depending on us to keep our word.
  It's very difficult to cut spending. It's very difficult to cut the 
budget. Every line in the Federal budget has a constituency. Every line 
in every appropriations bill has a constituency somewhere that cares 
deeply about that language being retained. So, when all else fails, an 
across-the-board cut may be the only way that you can ever achieve that 
spending restraint.
  Now, I understand that the White House does not agree with the 
Republican House that there is a spending problem. They think it's a 
revenue problem. Well, great. Put that in writing. Put it in the 
budget. Tell us when that revenue that you wish to achieve will bring 
this budget into balance. I, for one, don't think it's possible, but I 
would like to see the academic exercise of their at least trying to get 
it to balance at some point in the future.
  Then, finally, Mr. Speaker, may I just say--and I hate to give a 
history lesson--when the Republicans were in the minority in this 
House, there was a very large bill that was passed, and it was called 
the Affordable Care Act. This was a bill that did not receive a hearing 
in the House of Representatives. To be sure, H.R. 3200 had received a 
markup in a hearing in the House, but H.R. 3590, although it had a 
House

[[Page 947]]

bill number, was not a House bill. It was a housing bill that passed 
the House of Representatives in July of 2009 and went over to the 
Senate. It was completely changed in the Senate Finance Committee, and 
this was the bill that came to the House of Representatives on which we 
had to vote in a very short period of time. No amendments were allowed. 
It was a very closed process. I was in the Rules Committee that night. 
I remember the ranking member being there, and the good ideas that I 
thought I brought forward were all excluded from discussion.
  So don't lecture me about the process that this bill was rushed and 
didn't have a hearing. For heaven's sake, we have a bill that is now 
signed law that will cost $2.6 trillion over the next 10 years that 
never had a hearing in this House. That's the travesty, and that's why 
we have to deal with spending.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me just respond to the gentleman from Texas by saying he's wrong. 
He's on the Energy and Commerce Committee. The Affordable Care Act had 
hearings in the Energy and Commerce Committee--and markups. There were 
multiple hearings on that bill. I'm not sure what he's talking about.
  Then to the gentleman from Georgia who says that he didn't mention 
the fact that the President missed the deadline, I thought he did, but 
the bill that he's touting here mentions it in these very political, 
inspired findings. Read your own bill. It's three pages long. I know 
that may be too much, but we're all told to read the bill.
  Look, rather than being here and telling the President what to do--
he's going to submit a budget--we've got to do our job. Our job is to 
avoid this sequestration because, if we don't, there are millions of 
people in this country who will be without work. There are programs 
that will be arbitrarily cut, and this economy will be hurt. Now, if 
you want sequestration, then you can continue to take your recesses and 
do this kind of trivial stuff on the House floor, but we ought to be 
finding a way to avoid going over this sequestration cliff.
  At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. My friend from Massachusetts is absolutely right. 
What most of America is waiting for is for us to address the very abyss 
that we've put ourselves in, the cliff that we've put ourselves in--the 
fact that we became hostage to this idea of a commission that was 
necessary because we could not get Members on both sides of the aisle 
to be able to work together on what should be cut. It was particularly 
because my friends on the other side of the aisle had Members who did 
not understand how government functioned. Republicans did not 
understand that government, in fact, is a rainy-day umbrella, that we 
are supposed to serve the American people.
  So, while we are fiddling, one could say that Rome is burning, or 
maybe they could say that the cities and towns of America are asking us 
to finally answer the question. Under the laws that we adhere to, the 
President has a right to submit his budget. That should be very clear. 
No legislation here on the floor is going to dictate the President's 
budget.

                              {time}  1350

  There is a law that says it is supposed to be the first Monday in 
February. We will admit that. But what President has ever had the 
hostage-taking of the debt ceiling so that you can't write a budget if 
there are individuals in the Congress that won't do the normal 
business, which is to raise the debt ceiling so that the American 
people can be taken care of?
  As we speak, however, the President has introduced, today, a short-
term fix to avert the sequester. The Democrats have offered a way of 
averting the sequester. We have nothing from the Republicans except a 
resolution that says a request for a plan, the very plan that the 
President knows by law he is going to submit as long as he knows what 
the amount of money is we have to work on. And, of course, the 
budgeting process is going through the House. The chairman of the 
Budget, Mr. Ryan, the ranking member of the Budget, Mr. Van Hollen, we 
all know the regular order, and we're going to do our work.
  But putting us on the floor today and ignoring what we should be 
doing, I'm saddened that my amendment that indicated that I wanted to 
make sure that the most vulnerable in any budget process, 15.1 percent 
of Americans living below the poverty line, which includes 21 percent 
of our Nation's children, I wanted to have a sense of Congress that 
whatever we did, we would not do anything to harm these vulnerable 
children who, through no fault of their own that they may be suffering 
from the kind of economy, or their parents are suffering so that they 
live in poverty, whatever we do, we should not do anything more to make 
their life more devastating.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlelady 10 seconds.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. My other amendment had to do with the estate tax to 
raise revenue, and that would have been a reasonable debate to address 
what we can do to make the lives of Americans better.
  Request a plan; a plan is not action. The President does a budget; we 
do a budget. Mr. Speaker, let's do our work and help the American 
people and avoid the sequester.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say to my 
colleague that I share her great passion for America's children and 
protecting America's children. And I would say to my friend that I 
don't believe we can continue to operate under budgets that borrow from 
those children, not just this year, not just next year, but forever, 
and candidly say that we're protecting them. We're putting our most 
vulnerable at risk with these deficits, and we have to make the tough 
decisions.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOODALL. I'd be happy to yield.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Let me just say, I don't think anyone on this side of the aisle is 
not prepared to work collaboratively on the question of the deficit, on 
the question of growing America's economy and working with our 
children. Can we find common ground that indicates that we must invest 
in our children at the same time that we are likewise talking about 
debt and deficit? And that's what the Democrats are talking about, 
investing in our children, making their lives better.
  Mr. WOODALL. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We all want to make sure that our children are protected, but 
embracing a sequester that cuts things like Head Start, that's no way 
to protect our children.
  At this point, I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, in 23 days, by law, an indiscriminate 
chain saw is going to go through all quarters, all sectors of the 
American Government.
  Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta on Sunday, along with General 
Martin Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, very bluntly warned 
this country that if sequestration goes into effect, America's military 
readiness is going to be damaged in a very critical way. The Navy has 
told us specifically what this means: 23 ships whose repairs are 
scheduled will be cancelled; 55 percent of flying hours on aircraft 
carriers will be cancelled; 22 percent of steaming days for the rest of 
the U.S. fleet will be cancelled; submarine deployments will be 
cancelled.
  Today, right now, we have the USS Stennis and the USS Eisenhower 
stationed in the Middle East making sure that our allies, Israel, 
Turkey, critical missions like protecting the Straits of Hormuz, they 
have to have aircraft that can fly. They can't cancel 55 percent of 
their flight time and expect to carry out their mission. Yet in 23 
days, because of inaction by this Chamber, we are putting, again, 
America's national security interests at risk.

[[Page 948]]

  The Bipartisan Policy Center, founded by Bob Dole and Tom Daschle, 
has told us we will lose a million jobs if sequestration goes through. 
So those shipyards that are planning to do that repair work, they're 
basically going to get layoff slips.
  And we are debating a bill today that has absolutely no connection to 
those realities. This is a pure political stunt. It has no bearing in 
terms of whether or not the military readiness of this country or the 
economic recovery that's headed in the right direction right now is 
going to be protected and preserved. That's our job. That's what we 
should be focused on here today. And denying the Van Hollen amendment, 
which would replace that sequestration, is why this rule must be 
defeated.
  I urge Members of this Chamber to vote ``no'' on this rule.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to read from the President's inaugural address. It took place just 
outside our backdoor here. He said:

       We must make the hard choices to reduce the cost of health 
     care and the size of our deficit.

  He didn't say we should make the easy choices, because there aren't 
any easy choices left to make. Every single one of them is hard. And I 
have such great respect for Members of this body who have taken the 
hard votes and made those hard decisions.
  All this bill says is: Mr. President, put your budget where your 
speeches are. Make the hard choices, any of the choices you want to 
make to balance, anytime you want to balance, but we can't begin to pay 
down the debt until we stop running up the debt. And we have yet to see 
a budget from this President that puts us on that path.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Deutch).
  Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today disappointed that my amendment 
to the Require a PLAN Act has been left out of this rule.
  This bill is bad political theater. Not even the devastatingly 
dangerous Ryan budget could achieve the balanced budget in 2014 this 
bill demands of the President.
  Setting this silliness aside, my amendment would address a separate 
issue: this bill's use of the phrase ``unified budget'' and the 
inclusion of Social Security as part of that unified budget. This is a 
blatant attempt to nullify Social Security's historic independence from 
the Federal budget. Social Security is funded by the payroll tax. It 
was created with its own revenue stream so these hard-earned benefits 
would never fall victim to the political shenanigans of a Congress like 
this one.
  As President Franklin Roosevelt said:

       With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever 
     scrap my Social Security.

  Mr. Speaker, Social Security is not an item in the budget. It is 
social insurance that protects all Americans against destitution due to 
old age, a disability or illness, or the death of a breadwinner.
  Workers have built up $2.7 trillion in the Social Security trust fund 
which ensures that benefits will be paid in full at least until the 
mid-2030s. I have called for small adjustments to strengthen Social 
Security for the long term, and I'm ready to have that debate. But to 
put Social Security on the general budget's ledger as America's largest 
generation retires is simply beyond the pale.
  This bill, Mr. Speaker, puts Social Security on the GOP chopping 
block. This is a dangerous precedent. We cannot allow the accounting 
tricks in this bad legislation to endanger the Social Security that 
keeps so many Americans financially secure.
  President Truman said:

       Social Security is not a dole or a device for giving 
     everybody something for nothing. True Social Security must 
     consist of rights which are earned rights that are guaranteed 
     by the law of the land.

  Today, Mr. Speaker, these earned rights of millions of Americans are 
in jeopardy, as is that guarantee. We must vote down this rule and we 
must vote down this bad bill.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 60 seconds to say to my 
friend that I know his commitment to Social Security is heartfelt, and 
it's one that I share. I hope it gives him comfort to know that there 
is absolutely nothing in this legislation that changes any of those 
commitments that he read there on the House floor. In fact, I would say 
the opposite is true. As someone who's going to retire after Social 
Security is projected to have gone bankrupt, I think it is critically 
important that every budget we look at looks at how it is we're going 
to pay back all of those government bonds that this Congress has 
swapped the cash in the Social Security trust fund for. Without paying 
back those bonds, there is no Social Security check to go out the door.
  The reason we talk about balanced budgets is because numbers are 
important. We talk about balanced budgets because commitments are 
important. And we cannot, we cannot meet our Medicare commitments. We 
cannot meet our Social Security commitments, and everyone in this body 
knows it.

                              {time}  1400

  Every budget the President produces shows it. But we can do better; 
and working together, we will do better, Mr. Speaker.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the gentleman from 
Georgia how many more speakers he has.
  Mr. WOODALL. I'd say to my friend, I'm prepared to close.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I'm prepared to close as well, Mr. Speaker. I yield 
myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a very frustrating debate, in large part because 
it's much ado about nothing. What we're doing here today is a press 
release. It's doing nothing at all to avoid this prospect of 
sequestration in which arbitrary cuts will go into play. This is just 
more talk and talk and talk and talk.
  Again, that's one of the reasons why the American people are so 
frustrated with this place. They want less talk and more work. We 
should be working. We should be coming to some sort of agreement to 
avoid the catastrophe of sequestration; but, instead, we're doing this.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to put some things in perspective. The Center for 
American Progress reported that since the start of fiscal year 2011, 
President Obama has signed into law approximately $2.4 trillion of 
deficit reduction for the years 2013 through 2022. Nearly three-
quarters of that deficit reduction is in the form of spending cuts, 
while the remaining one-quarter comes from revenue increases. Congress 
and the President have cut about $1.5 trillion in programmatic 
spending, raised about $630 billion in new revenue, and generated about 
$300 billion in interest savings, for a combined total of more than 
$2.4 trillion in deficit reduction. That's a quote from the Center for 
American Progress.
  So three-fourths of the deficit reduction we've achieved so far was 
from spending cuts. But my friends on the other side have the nerve to 
continue to claim that Democrats are ``loathe'' to agree to spending 
cuts. I mean, give me a break, Mr. Speaker. Give me a break.
  The CBO projects the Federal deficit to be about $845 billion, which 
I think is very high; but it's the first time the nonpartisan office 
forecast a deficit below $1 trillion. So we are going in the right 
direction, and the President wants to continue to move in that right 
direction in a fair and balanced way.
  Now, here's the deal. My friends keep on referring to what they did 
last year which, again, was last year. We have to get them to think 
about this year because they have to act now; it's a new Congress.
  But last year the proposals they came up with to try to bring our 
budget into balance were all about lowering the quality of life for our 
citizens. Their budget proposal ended Medicare as we know it. Ended 
Medicare. It's gone.
  My friend from Florida talked about Social Security. Their plan for 
Social Security is to privatize it. And deep reductions and cuts that 
provide support

[[Page 949]]

for people who are most vulnerable. That's their plan.
  And now, we see, because we're not trying to address this latest 
fiscal cliff, I think they really do want the sequestration to go into 
effect. I think that is outrageous. I think it's going to be dangerous 
to our economy. But their plan, by allowing sequestration to go into 
effect, is basically to try to balance the budget by making more people 
unemployed.
  You know, we will lose jobs. In the defense sector that's already 
happening. But then we're going to see losses in jobs in other areas. 
There'll be cuts in education. Police grants are cut. Payments to 
Medicare providers are cut. And The New York Times reports that even 
the aid just approved for victims of Hurricane Sandy will fall under 
the sequester's axe.
  I mean, this is how we're going to solve our budgetary problems?
  Yes, we do have a big debt. A lot of it has to do with these unpaid-
for wars, with these tax cuts that weren't paid for; and it's going to 
take us a while to get out of it. But as we get out of it, we can't 
destroy our country. We need a balanced approach. We need to cut where 
we can cut, we need to raise revenues where we need to raise revenues, 
but we also need to invest.
  Cutting the National Institutes of Health, which will happen if 
sequestration goes into effect, will not only cost jobs, but it will 
prolong human suffering. If we could find a cure to Parkinson's disease 
or Alzheimer's disease, not only will we prevent a lot of human 
suffering, you would end up solving the budgetary challenges of 
Medicare and Medicaid. There's a value in investing in these things, 
not arbitrarily cutting them.
  Now, last night in the Rules Committee, we tried to bring some 
substance to this debate. Mr. Van Hollen had his amendment, which was 
blocked. The one substantive thing that we could have done here today 
to avoid sequestration was blocked.
  So, Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to ensure that the House votes on Mr. Van 
Hollen's replacement for the sequester which was, again, blocked last 
night in the Rules Committee.
  I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the 
Record, along with extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote 
on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, again, I would urge my colleagues to 
reject this rule which, again, is illustrative of how closed this 
process has become in this House. We ought to reject the rule because 
it is not open. The Budget Committee never even considered this bill.
  But we ought to also reject the underlying bill because this is 
nonsense at a time when we should be doing something real to avoid a 
real catastrophe in this country, to avoid something that will have an 
adverse impact on our economy. Instead, you know, we're all fiddling 
while Rome is burning.
  This is outrageous. We can do so much better. We ought to work. You 
know, you're passing resolutions asking the President to do X, Y, and 
Z. We ought to pass a resolution to instruct us to do our job, and 
that's what we ought to do. That's what the American people expect.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the 
previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time to 
thank my friend from Massachusetts for being down here with me today to 
get this rule to a place where we can vote on it. I always look to my 
friend from Massachusetts to find those things that we agree on, and we 
certainly agree that Congress has an awfully low approval rating.
  I would disagree with my friend though, Mr. Speaker, and say it's a 
low approval rating because we don't deal with important issues like 
this. It's a low approval rating because folks will say Republicans 
want to privatize Social Security, even though our budget did no such 
thing.
  It's a low approval rating because folks will say our budget destroys 
Medicare forever, even though our budget did no such thing. It's a low 
approval rating because folks say they want to grapple with the tough 
challenges of the country, and yet they continue to borrow and spend as 
they always have.
  But I'm an optimist, Mr. Speaker. I really do believe that we've come 
to a place--not just in this country, not just in this House--I think 
we've come to a place in each individual in this country, where folks 
are prepared to do those things that must be done to ensure that our 
children's tomorrow is better than their today.
  Mr. Speaker, when my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk 
about their deep love and affection for the next generation and how 
they want to ensure that the most vulnerable are taken care of, they 
mean it from the heart. They mean it from the heart.
  But when the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff tells us 
that our biggest national security concern is our growing debt and 
deficits, how much love can you show to the next generation, Mr. 
Speaker, when you continue to dig into their pockets instead of your 
own?
  It's not incumbent upon us to decide how our children set their 
priorities. It's incumbent upon us to set our priorities so that they 
don't have to make those tough decisions.
  Mr. Speaker, if we went out in the street in front of this Capitol 
and asked every man and woman who brought their family here to visit 
the Nation's Capitol how many of them knew that in not one budget, and 
for not 1 year does the President ever propose that we come to balance, 
that would be shocking, shocking news. And yet it's the truth.
  Mr. Speaker, title 31 lays out in intricate detail congressional 
requirements for the President's budget. Congressional requirements for 
the President's budget. H.R. 444 would incorporate those requirements 
and add one more and, that is, that in this time of economic challenge, 
you be honest with the American people about the tough choices that 
we're all facing.
  Mr. Speaker, if it was easy, they'd have done it before you and I got 
here. It's hard, and it's getting worse every single day any one of us 
fails to deal with it.
  We can deal with it today, Mr. Speaker. I know our Budget Committee 
is committed to dealing with it. I know this House is committed to deal 
with it. Let's make the President a partner in that today.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge strong support for the resolution. I 
urge strong support for the underlying bill.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

  An amendment to H. Res. 48 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     received for printing in the Congressional Record pursuant to 
     clause 8 of rule XVIII and numbered 1 shall be in order as 
     though printed as the last amendment in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules if offered by Representative Van Hollen of 
     Maryland or a designee. That amendment shall be debatable for 
     one hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and 
     an opponent.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that

[[Page 950]]

     ``the refusal of the House to sustain the demand for the 
     previous question passes the control of the resolution to the 
     opposition'' in order to offer an amendment. On March 15, 
     1909, a member of the majority party offered a rule 
     resolution. The House defeated the previous question and a 
     member of the opposition rose to a parliamentary inquiry, 
     asking who was entitled to recognition. Speaker Joseph G. 
     Cannon (R-Illinois) said: ``The previous question having been 
     refused, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had 
     asked the gentleman to yield to him for an amendment, is 
     entitled to the first recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican 
     Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United 
     States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). 
     Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question 
     vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not 
     possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. 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 adoption.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 229, 
nays 188, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 33]

                               YEAS--229

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

                               NAYS--188

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

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Black
     Cicilline
     Conyers
     Costa
     Crawford
     DeLauro
     Farr
     Gabbard
     McNerney
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Walberg
     Weber (TX)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1430

  Mrs. KIRKPATRICK, Messrs. HONDA, PAYNE, POLIS, Mrs. CAPPS and Ms. 
CASTOR of Florida changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. McHENRY changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                          ____________________