No Budget, No Pay Act

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 39 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Worcester, Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. All time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 39.

Today's debate is about one very simple but profoundly important goal, Mr. Speaker, and that is restoring our vibrant economy by reducing the crippling weight of the growing debt caused by our Federal Government.

In the coming months, we face a string of deadlines that will force Congress and the administration to address the fundamental challenge of our trillion-dollar deficit and its mounting effect on our economy and jobs in America. We've already exceeded $16 trillion in debt, and Republicans find this debt level absolutely unacceptable and that is why we are here today. By contrast, President Obama seems to be perfectly comfortable with the idea of reaching $23 trillion, which is where we'll be at the end of his second term if we continue his policies in that direction.

While $16 trillion in debt is stifling our economy, $23 trillion would crush it. It would crush the dreams and hopes and aspirations of our great Nation and the people who will certainly follow us, our children and our grandchildren. That's why, today, we're considering this rule and the underlying bill in order to reverse this course. Our great Speaker, John Boehner, and our majority leader, Eric Cantor, are pleased that this bill is on the floor today to discuss not just this important activity with our Members of Congress, but to let the American people know we are serious about what needs to be done to save this country from this crippling debt.

We will use the upcoming weeks and the looming deadlines before us as a means to enacting a more meaningful and lasting reform so that we can begin to grapple with this skyrocketing debt. At the same time, today's rule and the underlying bill will allow us to turn up pressure on the Senate to join the

House in offering real solutions. Together, these actions will help to reignite our engines to grow our economy and to restore discipline and accountability to our Federal budget.

The first of the looming deadlines we face is the debt ceiling limit. The underlying bill would temporarily suspend this limit so that we have the opportunity to craft comprehensive reforms without risking default on the debt that our Nation has incurred. Risking default would be counterproductive to our Republican agenda of restoring economic growth, getting our fiscal house in order, and ensuring that we do not burden future generations with intolerable debt.

We will not risk the full faith and credit of the United States, but neither will we compromise a long-term extension of this debt ceiling without slashing wasteful Federal spending, enacting meaningful entitlement reform, and ending the era of trillion-dollar deficits. By taking this temporary action, we are keeping the focus where it needs to be: resolving the coming debates on sequestration, the expiring continuing resolution, and the fiscal year 2014 budget through fiscal discipline and entitlement reform. Suspending the debt ceiling until May 19 provides the House and the Senate with much-needed time to pass a budget and then consider how best to deal with the sequester.

The underlying bill also takes action to ensure that the Senate becomes an active partner, which we want and need and the American people, I think, expect, in our efforts to reform Federal spending. For nearly 4 years, the Senate has failed to meet its most basic obligation: passing a budget. During this time, the Senate has collected its own paychecks despite being derelict in its most important duty.

In the private sector, there are consequences for failing to do one's job. This resolution will impose the same accountability on Members of Congress that private sector workers face. Oh, yes, and we're putting that same obligation on the House as we would want them to accept in the Senate. That is, if you don't get your work done, you don't get paid.

The power of the purse is the most fundamental duty the Constitution places upon Congress. For far too long, this power has not been wielded with the discipline and accountability necessary to do so responsibly and sustainably. There are a host of challenges that must be addressed, but the entire process begins with a joint budget resolution. As long as the Senate is unwilling or unable to do its job, our efforts in the House to deliver real solutions to the American people will continue to be impeded.

Some have questioned whether the action we are taking is constitutional. The 27th Amendment of the Constitution prohibits legislation that varies the salary of Members of the current Congress. This provision was intended to prevent Members of the House and the Senate from giving themselves a pay raise without first standing before the voters.

This bill upholds both the letter and the spirit of the 27th Amendment. It would not change a Member's rate of compensation in any way; they just don't get to collect it until they do their jobs. And until they get their work done, we simply cannot adopt a permanent extension to that debt ceiling.

This body will work to ensure that the Senate performs the most basic of tasks to pass a budget, and we'll do our job also. We will continue to work for meaningful entitlement and spending reforms to take us beyond our current cycle of crisis and deadlines in favor of long-term solutions. As we do all of this in order to invigorate our economy and put our Nation back to prosperity for ourselves and for future generations, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I will insert into the Record an article from The Washington Post dated January 22, 2013.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to now discuss, if I can, this Washington Post article which is out today, which says the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid praised House leaders for moving ahead with a bill that would give the government borrowing authority into the future.

He further said that he not only is very glad that we're going to send a clean debt ceiling bill, but that he felt like it would be good for the Senate to be able to take up this action.

Well, Mr. Speaker, what we're trying to do is to empower those things that we know this institution, the House and the Senate--where we work closer together, where we both do our work.

And yesterday, the gentleman representing the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Ryan, who's also Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, in testimony said that he intended to make sure that he would produce a bill exactly supporting what we are trying to do here today, and would bring that to the floor, and would be faithful in doing that.

Look, maybe people are upset that we're putting their pay at risk. Maybe people are upset because it wasn't their idea. But the bottom line is that Paul Ryan, John Boehner, Eric Cantor, the Rules Committee, yesterday said we think it's a good bill, and we were joined by Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader.

When the Senate Majority Leader can agree with Republicans about a great direction to go that will empower the Senate and join with them in trying to make sure that we get our job done, I think that's a rare day. I think that's a good day when we can work together, when we can bring legislation that the Senate openly welcomes and, might I add, the President of the United States, President Obama, would sign this legislation. And he said so in the Statement of Administration Policy.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

(By Rosalind S. Helderman)

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) praised House

leaders Tuesday for moving ahead with a bill that would give

the government borrowing authority into May, without

demanding deep spending cuts in return.

He said Democrats will discuss in coming days how to deal

with a House provision, attached to the bill, that would

require the Senate to adopt a budget for the first time in

four years or see their pay docked. He said he would be

meeting with the Senate Budget Committee Chairwoman Patty

Murray (D-Wash.) to discuss the Republicans' ``no budget, no

pay provision.''

``I'm very glad that they're going to send us a clean debt

ceiling bill,'' Reid told reporters. ``The other stuff on it,

we'll approach that when we need to. But I'm glad we're not

facing crisis here in the matter of a few days.''

The government hit the $16.4 trillion debt ceiling in

December. The Treasury Department has been using

extraordinary measures to extend the limit but has said that

if Congress doesn't act to raise the limit by the end of

February, the United States will be unable to meet its

spending obligations and will default.

Republicans had been threatening to refuse to raise the

limit unless Democrats offered deep entitlement cuts in

return. They announced a new strategy Monday: Suspend the

debt ceiling until May 19, while pressuring the Senate to

adopt a budget. The House will vote on the temporary lifting

of the debt ceiling on Wednesday.

Reid stopped short of saying the Senate would adopt the

measure without changes if it passes the House on Wednesday.

But by characterizing the House bill as a ``clean'' increase

in the nation's borrowing limit--a longtime demand of the

White House and Democrats--he suggested its passage in the

Senate will not be difficult.

``I'm happy they sent us a debt ceiling not tied to

entitlement cuts and dollar-for-dollar [cuts],'' Reid said.

``That's a big step in the right direction. The other stuff

on it, Sen. Murray is going to be the spokesperson on that

for the next 24 hours or so. We'll see how she wants to

proceed.''

The result of the House action, he said, was to buy time:

``We have many months to work through this,'' he said.

Reid's review was far more positive than that of House

Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), who blasted the GOP

measure as a diversion tactic to reporters Tuesday. If House

Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) has support from fellow

Republicans, however, he can pass the bill Wednesday without

the votes of House Democrats.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman, the ranking member of the committee, who was very faithful and sat through not only the hearing yesterday, but offered her feedback to our speakers who came to the Rules Committee representing the House Administration Committee and representing the Ways and Means Committee. I thought that her questions and her tone were very appropriate.

I think that yesterday the two Republican lead Representatives--the gentlewoman from Michigan, Candice Miller, representing the House Administration Committee; and the gentleman from the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Ryan--adequately not only spoke about, Mr. Speaker, a five-page bill--five pages that we could not only understand, but offer the idea, regardless of who came up with the idea, that represents what I hope will be and believe will be more than 218 votes and I think will be bipartisan. These ideas don't just belong to somebody and we can't share them--they belong to the American people--about a way to move forward, avoiding conflict, working together, coming up with ideas that you can express with great confidence that we believe will work.

Yesterday, during the hearing, we also had some thoughtful conversation.

I'd like to yield 5 minutes to the Rules Committee designee to Chairman Ryan and the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall).

Mr. Speaker, as always, this floor is open to people who have ideas. I'd like to say to the American people and to my colleagues that are listening that the Republican leadership has decided to bring this bill to the floor today. We have no clue exactly what date the United States actually needs to make sure that we pass this bill to avoid not paying our bills. The Secretary of the Treasury is in active notification with our leadership and the leadership of the Senate and perhaps all Members because of his openness to speak about this in the press.

We don't know when that day is, and because we don't know when that day is, that's a good reason to begin working on ideas to see whether we can even pass this bill. I think we're going to. I think it's going to be a bipartisan bill. I don't think everybody necessarily has the same concerns that the gentleman from California spoke of, but what we're trying to do is work together. Conservative Republicans in our party do support this bill. I support this bill as a conservative Republican. Our Speaker, as a conservative Republican, supports this bill.

What it's about is avoiding the problems of chaos, avoiding the problems of doing things at the last minute, avoiding the problems of not addressing the issue, and avoiding the problems where the marketplace loses confidence in what we're doing.

Chairman Paul Ryan, chairman of our Budget Committee, a bright young leader for our country, forthrightly brought this idea to our conference and has sold it. It's the right thing to do. We are trying to do here today the right thing, talking with the American people, letting people see that we're moving forward to avoid conflict and avoid problems.

So it was accomplished with this 5-page bill, a 5-page bill which we will then have two committee chairmen, Paul Ryan representing the Ways and Means committee, perhaps Dave Camp, the chairman of the committee, and Candice Miller of House Administration, work through meticulous, thoughtful ideas that really are not difficult to get because it's a 5- page bill.

We think we're doing the right thing, we think we've got the votes, and we think it's going to provide this country and the Senate and this administration, us all working together, the right thing. So if you want to oppose it, I get that. I can understand the positions held. But passing the bill will be a positive thing. It will offer working- together relationships with the Senate. It is supported and not opposed by the President, and I think that gives us an opportunity to put a good foot forward in this new Congress rather than one where we're fighting, disagreeing, and can't get our act together.

The American people demand that we get things done. The American people are asking, hey, when possible, can you guys work together? Yes, we can. Today is the day where we can say, Mr. Speaker, people from Nebraska, people from Texas, people from Ohio, people from all over this country, can you work together? We're trying to find a way, and I'm proud of that. And with great respect to anybody who would disagree with that, we're going to stand behind our product today with a money- back guarantee--a money-back guarantee: if we don't get our job done, we're not going to take the pay.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The gentlewoman from Houston, Texas, is absolutely correct. We do need long-term growth of our economy. We need jobs. We need job creation. We need to be able to reduce the debt of this country.

The President is well aware, we're well aware here in Congress that each

of the years that the President has been our President he increased spending. He wants a massive tax increase, and we have a deficit. We have a deficit of $1.3 trillion each of these years.

We're trying to work together. We're trying to, as the President said as he addressed a luncheon just an hour after he was sworn in, that he wants to learn from some of the things that he's done and he wants to do better. Some of doing that better is a chance to perhaps reassess: Did I do the right thing the first time? Did I do the right thing when I continue to raise taxes and demand that we do that?

Higher taxes diminish jobs and opportunity and growth in this country, and that's why we are trying to suggest openly, Mr. President, let's grow some jobs. Let's do the things I think that are more in line with what President George W. Bush did, who is referred to as No. 43 in Dallas, Texas. No. 43 had 60 straight months of economic growth, with the underpinning of reducing taxes so that Americans would go and work harder and see the incentive for creating jobs and would want to buy into the philosophy that the harder that we work, our country benefits. The underpinnings of Social Security, of Medicare, of Medicaid, systems that are very important to our country; reducing the number of people who have to receive government assistance is what happens when you have job growth; protecting the long-term interests of this country and growing the American Dream.

The gentlewoman from Houston is absolutely correct. And the methodology towards getting there is not higher taxes, and it is not higher spending. It is giving more freedom and opportunity. It is having a reduced size of government, not a bigger government. It is giving people an opportunity to have fewer rules and regulations, not more rules and regulations.

So the process that the Republican Party believes in deeply is the rights of individuals, freedom and opportunity, and reducing the size of government, which gives more people opportunities to empower their freedom and opportunity for their American Dream.

It's part of what we're doing here today. I think we believe and I think it works. Look at Texas and you will see where we have job growth, job creation, a healthier economy than other places in the country, and an opportunity to say we want more of it for all of America.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, as I have no additional speakers.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

I appreciate my colleagues--the gentleman, Mr. McGovern; the ranking member of the committee, Ms. Slaughter; and those Democrat Members who came down to express themselves. I also appreciate the Republicans who came down to talk about this important issue.

Mr. Speaker, what we're doing is debating a bill, H.R. 325, that ensures that the obligations of the United States are taken care of. We're not trying to stand in the way. Even the United States Senate majority leader said, Great job, House. Thank you very much. We can work with this bill. We can work with you.

Members of my party have said we think this is a responsible way to begin the process to avoid having to make difficult decisions at the very end. We've laid out a process. Yesterday, the gentleman from Wisconsin, our young leader, Paul Ryan, who is the chairman of the House Budget Committee, was asked in testimony, Will you produce your end of the bargain that is in here? Will you take care of your part with the knowledge that we're counting on that?

The Senate has said, as to their part of the bargain, whether they pass this bill or not, they can step up to the responsibility. Those leaders have said, Yes, we think we can.

It's not perfect. By golly, I'm not sure what ``perfect'' is anymore because ``perfect'' may not get passed in this House, but the fair and proper way to handle things is so the American people have confidence in what we're doing, so the markets have confidence in what we're doing, and so the budget is handled. All of these things are placed in a systematic order so that our Members, the Members of this body, can go home and communicate with people as to here is what we think is going to happen next.

Avoiding problems is what Speaker Boehner and our great majority leader, Eric Cantor, are trying to do. They are bringing legislation to this floor that adequately begins the process before we get in trouble. It's a 5-page bill. It's ordered up exactly as the doctor would have wanted--in English, where you can understand it, where it doesn't take a legal degree or for you to have to be in the House for 30 years to figure out what we're trying to say.

What we're trying to say is right here, and that is for the House and the Senate to work together. We do a budget. We lay out to the American people what we're trying to do. We work with the President, and we tell this administration and the government what we're doing. The American people can have confidence in this.

I support this. In fact, as chairman of the Rules Committee, I am asking for our Members and all Members of this body to please see this as a responsible way to deal with the problems that are immediately in front of us but before it becomes a crisis, before it becomes something that we cannot deal with as effectively, and bringing the American people along.

I also want to thank the President of the United States, President Obama, because President Obama said he could live with this.

I want to congratulate Senator Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader. Yes, I'll say that here on the floor because he says it's the right thing to

do, and thank you for passing us a clean bill that will give them the authority and the responsibility to do what they really want to do--not playing hardball, not throwing rocks. As a matter of fact, Senator Harry Reid said, A clean bill--a good thing. Now it's up to them. It's up to them to take up their activities that are for us, and it's up to this House of Representatives.

So, as we finish this, Paul Ryan, the young leader of the Ways and Means Committee, Dave Camp, and others will be here debating these ideas. Immediately after that, you will see that Candice Miller, the House Administration chairwoman, will come and talk with this House and the American people about the responsibility that she has to ensure that what we do is correct and proper. Then this body will have a chance to vote ``yes'' or ``no,'' and that will be an authority and a responsibility once again for Paul Ryan, as the chairman of our Budget Committee, and for those members of the committee, Republicans and Democrats, to do their work, get it done and to produce a bill. We will then comply, but if we don't: no work, no pay. That's something the American people can understand. It's simple. It goes back to 1607: no work, no food.

Members of Congress need to understand we've got to get our job done, so I'm proud of what we're doing here today. I can stand behind this product and proudly say that I think this will pass the smell test of the American people and that it's something they can understand and something they will look forward to. Watch us as we do our job.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas, the new chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. Sessions, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me say to my colleagues, both Democratic and Republican colleagues, that they ought to vote against this rule. The bill before us today was not the product of deliberation in either the Ways and Means Committee or the House Administration Committee. There were no hearings. It was brought before the Rules Committee last night, and not a single amendment was made in order. This is a closed rule.

So if my friend from Texas wants to usher in a new policy of openness in this Congress, we should have had this rule open so that Members could have an opportunity to express themselves and to have their viewpoints made known. But, again, it is a completely closed rule.

So this rule should be defeated. It should go back to the Rules Committee. We ought to come back with something that allows this Chamber to be able to do its deliberation.

And Mr. Speaker, we ought to be here today to raise the debt ceiling, not because we like the idea of raising the debt ceiling, but because that's the right thing to do. It is the right thing to do for our country and for our economy.

It is the right thing to do for the businesses of this country, so that they have some certainty that we will not default on our debts. And if they had that certainty, they would then invest in our economy and help create more jobs and help create more opportunity for people.

You know, one of the things I have heard from Republicans and Democrats who I've bumped into at all types of occasions, they may have differences on our tax policy, they may have differences on our economic policy, but the one thing that everybody seems to agree on is that Congress ought to provide certainty. And this is anything but certainty, because what we are doing today, thanks to the Republican leadership, is to bring a short-term extension of the debt ceiling to the floor, which means that they have decided, once again, to play partisan politics with the debt ceiling.

This is a bad idea. This is not the way a mature governing body ought to behave. We ought to do our job.

Next month the United States will hit the debt ceiling and, without action, the United States will default on its debts. Now, the last time the Republican leadership played this dangerous game of economic Russian roulette, they threatened the full faith and credit of the United States for the first time in our history. For some reason they seem hell-bent on doing it again.

We need to be clear about one thing. The debt limit is not about new spending, it's not about increasing the deficit. The debt limit is simply the way Congress pays for things that we have already bought, things like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, by the way, that my friends on the other side continue to insist that we don't pay for; it just goes on a credit card. Things like the Medicare prescription drug benefit that was not paid forward that my friends on the other side of the aisle championed, things that the Republicans have voted for over and over and over again.

Now, we can and we should have an open and thoughtful debate about our spending priorities and our deficit. That is what we're supposed to do. But playing games with the debt limit, threatening to default, should not be an option. But that's just what the bill before us does. It, once again, kicks the can down the road.

Now, instead of passing a clean, long-term debt ceiling bill, one that could ensure that America doesn't default on its debt and obligations, the Republicans have chosen to bring a bill up that would put us right back in the same place that we're in now in May, 3 months from now.

So what's next, Mr. Speaker? A 3-week extension of the debt ceiling? Three days? Three hours?

My Republican friends go on and on about how the business community needs and deserves certainty from Washington, but treating the full faith and credit of the United States like just another political talking point is no way to create certainty.

How ironic, Mr. Speaker, that the Republican Party, the party that took

a record surplus and turned it into a record deficit, the party that put two major wars on the Nation's credit card, the party that refused to pay for two rounds of tax cuts and a massive, expansive prescription drug benefit, now wants to pay its bills. Now wants to pay its bills.

The same group of people that got us into this mess are now telling us that they want to get us out of this mess. The fact is, on the issue of the deficit and on the issue of the debt, my friends on the other side of the aisle, I do not believe, have any credibility.

You know, there's an old show business saying, Mr. Speaker: you got to have a gimmick. And my Republican friends never cease to disappoint me. They always have a gimmick. They believe in government by gimmicks. And this No Budget, No Pay bill is another gimmick.

Let's kind of play this out. What their bill says is if the House doesn't pass a budget bill by April 15, we don't get paid. If the Senate doesn't pass a budget bill by April 15, they don't get paid.

Now, I have no doubt that they have the votes to ram whatever they want through the House of Representatives, and I expect that they will bring us yet another budget bill that has the same extreme, excessive spending cuts in programs that benefit the middle class and poor that they brought before us last year. So I think they will bring a bill to the floor.

And let's say the Senate does bring a budget bill to the floor and they pass it. This bill does not require that there be a conference report that is voted on by both the House and the Senate as a condition of whether or not Members get paid.

So, again, this is not a solution. What this is just more political gamesmanship. You pass something in the House that may be totally irreconcilable, something that will never be able to be conferenced with the Senate. Senate, you pass whatever you want, it doesn't have to be conferenceable with the House, and there we are. And there we are, 3 months from now, in the same position that we are in now.

You know, the way this should be done, and I know this is a radical idea, but the way this should be done is the leadership of the Republican side should speak with the leadership of the Democratic side, and let's see if we can kind of agree on a way to proceed. There ought to be serious discussions.

I'll also point out for my colleagues and for those who are watching, there were a couple of occasions over the last year and a half where Speaker Boehner came very close to coming to agreement with the White House on a bigger deal. And on those two occasions the Speaker walked away and said no after he came very close to saying yes.

Why did he say no?

It had nothing to do with the Senate not having passed a budget resolution. It had everything to do with the fact that when the Speaker came back and talked to his Republican rank-and-file Members, they all said no. They said no. It doesn't cut Medicare enough. It doesn't cut Social Security enough. It doesn't cut food stamps enough. It doesn't cut education enough. It doesn't cut job creation enough.

There are people on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, who are using this not as an opportunity to balance our budget, but they're using this as an opportunity to gut government, to end the public sector. They see this as their opportunity. And as a result, we have this uncertainty. And as a result, the American people pay the price. As a result, this economy is not recovering as quickly as it needs to be.

I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule, this closed rule. This is not the way we should begin this session.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, enough of the gimmicks. It's time to get serious about doing the people's business, and this is not doing the people's business.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I'm glad the gentleman from Texas agrees with Harry Reid. I hope he agrees with Harry Reid on more things in the future. But the fact of the matter is this show business before us does nothing other than postpone this

debate on the debt ceiling for 3 months. It doesn't require a finished product. It does not require that we actually have something that amounts to a deal that goes to the President's desk. The House will pass their extreme budget, like they always do. The Senate will probably do something. And then nothing else is required. There's no requirement for a deal in order to get your pay.

This is show business. And what we should be doing is providing certainty to the business community that we're not going to default on our obligations in 3 months. And we ought to come together and figure out a way to be able to get this budget in balance without destroying the social safety net in this country. Again, the problem has always been--and let's be clear about this--as much as I get frustrated with the Senate, the problem on this is not the Senate. The problem is the rank-and-file Republicans in the House Republican Conference who, every time the Speaker of the House goes to them with a deal, they say, No. They always say it doesn't cut deep enough, it doesn't eliminate programs that help the poor, it doesn't eliminate programs that help the middle class, it doesn't eliminate programs that help create jobs. Because the ultimate goal of so many on the other side is not about a balanced budget. They don't care about balanced budgets. They're the ones who took this balanced budget that Bill Clinton had and turned it into one of the worst deficits and debt in our country. They don't care about that. They care about eliminating the public sector. That's what this is about. Three months? Please. Three months? What kind of certainty is that?

I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to tell the gentleman from Georgia that I appreciate his many, many, many, many years working here in Washington, not only as a Member of Congress, but his many years as a congressional aide. So you have a perspective here based on many, many years of service in Washington. But I would just say that if someone were to tell me that the Republican leadership were to bring yet another closed rule to the floor, I'm sad to say that I'd respond: I'm not surprised.

This is a closed rule. This is a bill--whether it's five pages or a hundred pages, it doesn't make any difference--that did not come out of a committee process. The Ways and Means Committee didn't hold hearings or a markup. The House Administration Committee didn't hold hearings or a markup. This did, as my colleague from New York said, basically come out of your retreat, and you hand a bill to all of us here. What's even more startling is that you do not allow anybody, Democrats or Republicans, to amend it. Completely closed. Completely closed.

Look, I would say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle-- especially the freshmen who campaigned on the platform of openness and transparency--you vote for this rule, you're the problem. You're the problem if you vote for this rule. So I would again urge my colleagues, just on the process alone, this is not the way that we should proceed.

The other thing I would remind my friends who are saying that somehow this is going to produce a result, this doesn't require a result. This requires the House to once again pass its budget--which, as we all know from last year's experience, represents the extreme of the extreme; I mean, it's irreconcilable with the Senate--and the Senate can pass whatever they want, but it doesn't require a finished product. What the American people want is a finished product, not a gimmick to kick the can down the road for 3 months. Yeah, everybody is happy we're not going to default today. But 3 months, that's it? I mean, I think we can do a heck of a lot better than this.

At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Let's be clear. This House is not open to new ideas. If it was, we would not be coming to the floor with a bill that is a completely closed rule so that Members cannot offer their ideas in the form of amendments.

Secondly, their gimmick even has a gimmick to it. They say that if the Senate doesn't act or the House doesn't act on a budget, they don't get paid. Really what they do is they get paid at the end of the year. So their pay is not taken away.

This is show business. Instead of show business and instead of gimmicks, we ought to be coming to the House floor in a bipartisan way trying to figure out how to solve some of these budgetary problems. I regret very much that this is the best we can do, kicking the can down the road for 3 months.

Mr. Speaker, at this point, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bera).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

We have a gimmick before us that withholds pay if we don't pass a budget, but not if you don't get a deal. It doesn't matter whether the budget is irreconcilable or partisan. Here is the other gimmick. It doesn't really withhold anybody's pay. It just delays when you get the check.

The problem is not the United States Senate, I want to tell my friends. It is my friends on the other side of the aisle who do not want a deal, who want instead to basically annihilate and eviscerate the public sector. I say to my friends, if you want to balance the budget, pay for your wars, pay for your tax cuts, pay for your giveaways to the very wealthy in this country. What is before us is not a solution.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' to not kick the can down the road, to deal with the problems as we see them right now. And I also urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, those especially who call for transparency, vote ``no'' on this closed rule. This is a closed rule. Nobody has an opportunity to offer any other ideas. This is not the way we should be dealing with budget issues. Vote ``no'' on this closed rule.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, isn't it true that no matter what happens with this bill that Members will get paid no matter what?

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

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).

I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed).

I yield 1 minute to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black).

I yield 1 minute to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Young).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith).

At this time I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).

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

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. Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the Speaker of the House.

At this time I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Member from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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.

Madam Speaker, I reserve a point of order.

Madam Speaker, I withdraw my point of order.