Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, as the House prepares to once again vote on legislating approval of a presidential permit to construct the Keystone XL pipeline, I find it disappointing that the Majority refuses to work with Democratic supporters, like myself, of the pipeline. By attempting to legislate a process set in place by President George W. Bush, the Majority has succeeded in making the pipeline a political issue instead of one of unifying national energy independence. As a supporter of the Keystone XL pipeline, I oppose H.R. 3, the Northern Route Approval Act, and ask the Majority to instead work with the Administration to approve this project and legislate issues that can further enhance our energy independence rather than playing partisan politics.

The intent of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is to provide transparency so communities can know the impact of projects on their neighborhoods. However, H.R. 3 circumvents that transparency by simply deeming approved the NEPA review. H.R. 3 also deems approved permits under the Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act. When these laws were passed, they were not revolutionary, they were commonsense, and were passed on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis. One could even say these environmental laws were so important that they were, in fact, nonpartisan. Allowing those processes to run their courses is also commonsense and should be nonpartisan.

This pipeline will eventually be built either south from Canada to the Gulf Coast or west to the Pacific where the Canadian oil will be sent to China. As a supporter of the pipeline and American energy security, I, for one, would prefer to see those manufacturing, construction, and other jobs created here in the U.S.

Allowing the process provided under these laws to unfold does not mean you have to be opposed to the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. The majority claims that this bill is necessary to ``address continued regulatory uncertainty.'' However, this bill does exactly the opposite; it circumvents the established process and potentially opens the project to lawsuits that will ensure the pipeline is kept in the court system for years to come.

I oppose this bill, which gives special treatment to a foreign company not afforded to domestic companies. The House should be doing more to secure our country's energy independence instead of playing political games with our nation's energy future. As a supporter of the Keystone XL pipeline, I urge you to oppose H.R. 3.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1062, the SEC Regulatory Accountability Act.

Today we are considering another in a long line of Republican bills that wish to supplant public interest considerations at regulatory agencies with cost-benefit analysis. H.R. 1062 would require the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, to perform a cost-benefit analysis when conducting new rulemakings. The bill would also mandate a cost-benefit review of existing SEC rules every five years without appropriating additional funds to that agency to do so. The net effect will be a regulatory agency tied in knots and incapable of carrying out the mission it was chartered to do: protect investors from fraud.

Mr. Chair, my father helped charter the SEC because Wall Street nearly destroyed this country's economy in 1929. After years of Republican-led efforts at deregulation, Wall Street came close to doing that again in 2007 and 2008, and we are only now starting to recover from that calamity. It grieves me that the House continues to consider legislation that hamstrings the very agency meant to protect hard- working Americans from the types of rascality to which Wall Street seems inclined by nature.

I urge my colleagues not to repeat the past. Vote down this terrible bill and show you stand with the people, not Wall Street.

Mr. Speaker, this is a prodigious waste of the time of the House working on a bad piece of legislation. I rise today in strong opposition to the Patients' Rights Repeal Act.

My Republican colleagues are up for the 37th time with this nonsense, and they are fully determined to take away all of the rights that we have given under the Affordable Care Act to the people of the United States.

People are going to go back in the doughnut hole, courtesy of the Republicans. No longer will people be protected against being excluded from insurance because of preexisting conditions. And it is going to be possible now for insurance companies to kick people off insurance plans because they get sick while they have a policy. Kids are not going to go on their parents' policies after they are 26 if we pass this nonsensical legislation.

Einstein said that expecting a different result from things done over and over again is proof of insanity. Well, this is insanity. But worse than that, it is a waste of time of the people in the Congress and the money of the United States citizens who pay our wages.

This is a bad proposal. Vote it down.

Mr. Speaker, it has often been said by many, including everyone from Albert Einstein to Benjamin Franklin, that the very definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

We gather here in this Chamber today not to work on behalf of the American people, but instead to partake in our 37th round of insanity-- repeal of a law that is already helping our struggling American families.

I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: just what part of helping the American people are you opposed to? Are you content in this preposterous display that is, by its very definition, insanity?

You are reinstating the lifetime cap on coverage for people-- including children--telling

them there's nothing more that can be done for them, because their insurance provider said so.

You are ending the closing of the so-called ``donut hole'' and allowing millions of seniors to see increases in prescription drug costs, amounting to thousands and thousands of dollars in additional burdens on our seniors.

You are eliminating tax credits for more than 4 million American small businesses that stand to benefit from providing coverage for their workers, ensuring they can continue to work and provide for their business in good health and wellness.

You are telling the American people that it's fine for insurance companies to drop them from coverage just because they got sick.

You are returning our American children to the uncertain and vulnerable times when ``preexisting conditions'' meant their life and livelihood was less important than the bottom lines of insurance executives.

You are denying care for 6.6 million young people who qualify to stay on their parents' plan until age 26. Is that your preferred way of protecting and promoting the future leaders of our nation?

My friends, all that this 37th repeal vote offers is yet another piece of evidence in proving the newfound insanity of this body, further emulating the ``do-nothing'' Congress that was the 112th.

This is not what we should be wasting our time with--this is nothing more than political posturing so House Freshmen can make the same foolish mistakes of their most immediate predecessors.

This is not a vote for the American people, rather it is a callous disregard for the health and wellbeing of those who continue to work, each and every day, to make our nation great, provide for their families and ask for nothing more than a fair shot at the American Dream.

I will remind my colleagues that the very best way of protecting the American Dream is by protecting the American people--the very best asset our country holds.

We should be doing the nation's business in a cooperative manner, not working to further divide all of us who are so deeply in need of bipartisanship and unity.

Today's insane and useless vote will bring the total amount of taxpayer dollars wasted on hours upon hours of legislative attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act to $52.4 million dollars in just three years since it became the law of the land, and just one year since the Supreme Court upheld it and ensured the care and cost-saving measures that all American families deserve.

I ask you, my colleagues, to oppose this insane legislation, end this further waste of taxpayer dollars, and bring this body back to the honest and necessary job we owe to the people we're blessed to represent.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 701. While I applaud the bipartisan efforts of my colleagues to help small businesses grow and create jobs, the sting of the effects of financial deregulation is still too strong to allow me to support this bill.

I voted against similar legislation in the 112th Congress because I think raising the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Regulation A threshold is a bad idea. I note that Congress has raised this threshold five times already. In each of those instances, though, Congress approved a modest increase that was relative to the rate of inflation and the purchasing power of the dollar. H.R. 701 would mandate an unprecedented tenfold increase in the current threshold of $5 million to $50 million. Such an increase strikes me as grotesquely large, especially since inflation has risen only 165 percent since 1980.

H.R. 701 will force the SEC--without additional appropriations--to do something that constitutes a tremendous incitement to perpetrate fraud on investors. I cannot in good conscience support this bill and urge my colleagues to vote it down.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 807, the Full Faith and Credit Act. Instead of working productively with Democrats, my Republican colleagues seem content to continue dabbling in debt limit chicanery that threatens the economic security of this country.

Let me be clear: H.R. 807 offers no comprehensive solution to the debt limit. It is a legislative blueprint for how the United States should pay its bills after it defaults. More baffling is the fact that the bill prioritizes debt payments to Chinese bondholders over paying our troops, supporting our veterans, and making Medicare payments to seniors.

That Republicans continue to push bills like this indicates they have no real interest in fixing the sequester or putting in place the kinds of policies that will contribute to stable economic growth. This will have a seriously debilitating effect on financial markets at a time when we can ill afford it. In addition, H.R. 807 could lead to another downgrade of our country's credit rating because the bill indicates to markets that it assumes a default will actually occur.

Madam Speaker, this is irresponsible policymaking at its finest. H.R. 807 threatens to undo the full faith and credit of the United States, a promise that has stood for over 200 years and is the foundation of global capital markets. I urge my colleagues to put aside partisan differences and act in the country's best interests by voting this bill down.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1406, the Working Families Flexibility Act. It outrages me that my Republican colleagues continue to clothe despicable bills in inventive titles. In point of fact, H.R. 1406 offers no flexibility to working families. It does, however, grant employers the flexibility not to pay their employees overtime.

The Working Families Flexibility Act is nothing short of an assault on American working families. It will put an end to the 40-hour work week that my father fought so hard to enact in the Fair Labor Standards Act. The bill will force employees to work longer hours without guarantee of fair pay. It contains no provision to allow employees to contest employer decisions not to grant time off for personal or family emergencies. In short, the bill's sole purpose is to empower employers and disenfranchise the American middle class.

I urge my colleagues to recognize H.R. 1406 for the evil it is and call on them to stand up for working families by voting it down.

Mr. Speaker, Is there no one in this chamber who is embarrassed? Or perhaps the question should be: Is no one in this chamber not embarrassed?

The Senate panics and passes a bill to correct the failures of a small part of the abominable consequences of the ``sequester'' or sequestration.

We are now funding the failures of what we did earlier. With red faces and guilty looks, we vote on a quick correction of one important, but small, consequence--furloughs at the FAA amongst controllers--and now we sneak out of town, believing that we have made the travelling public safe.

Have we? Baloney! A really huge problem still remains unaddressed. The budget is a giant mess. Many other perils to our society, to our safety, and to the wellbeing of our people are quietly ignored as we sneak out of Washington to go home for speeches, campaigning and schmoozing with our people.

How many of us will describe our real failures we leave unaddressed? Dangers at the borders, cuts and furloughs to Custom & Border Protection, the Department of Homeland Security, and other security agencies--all unaddressed.

Food and Drug Administration--cut, sequestered, and unable to protect our people's health and safety.

Roads, highways, and bridges--all in danger.

Law enforcement at risk and with cuts, sequesters, and all that goes with those events to fester in our absence.

Education--our schools, colleges, universities, and research facilities are all affected with uncertainty.

Business, investments, and job creation all delayed because we can't--or won't--address our budget problems.

Almost nothing in government, or the economy, is able to prosper or carry out its responsibilities because we cannot, or will not, address the budget problems of this Nation, using the sequester as a substitute for courage, responsibility, and just good, honest work with compromise and cooperation.

This Republic has prospered for over 200 years because this Congress--the House and Senate--and our political parties worked together in the public's interest.

Apparently--No more!

We now go home, one small matter dealt with.

How many more are not dealt with? And what will be the consequences?

As we sneak home shame-facedly it may be that we ourselves will be safe from these failures.

Perhaps we will even be safe politically for a while, but we do not deserve to be; and we won't be when people figure out how poorly we do the Nation's business.

We have much to do. This country believes that we should do so, and it will demand that we do so.

Let us buckle down.

Let us do the job we are paid to do. We have a vital responsibility.

Let us carry it out.

Let us get busy and do the Nation's business--now.

Our responsibility is more important than our ideology.

I am ashamed. Is the rest of this body ashamed?

And what will we do about it?

Mr. Speaker, I commend the sponsors of this legislation, and I urge the adoption of the bill.

It is appropriate that we should honor these four young girls who gave so much to the cause of civil rights. They gave their lives.

Just before this event, we had passed the Civil Rights Act of 1957. Immediately thereafter, we passed legislation, cosponsored by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Loser) and me, which made it a crime to travel in interstate commerce for the purpose of destroying buildings or churches. Shortly thereafter, outraged by the events that took place on this awful day, the Congress passed the '64 and then the '65 Civil Rights Acts.

These four beautiful children contributed in a most meaningful way to those events which caused the legislation to become law, and they saw to it that we honor their doings today with enactment of this legislation.

I rise in support of H.R. 360, legislation to award a Congressional Gold Medal to four brave little girls who tragically lost their lives 50 years ago in the bombing of the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama.

I want to thank the gentlewoman from Alabama, Congresswoman Sewell, for bringing the attention of Congress to this fateful incident that helped transform the history of our nation and for giving the victims of this attack the recognition for which they are long overdue.

I remember the day of this tragic incident, and my thoughts and prayers continue to be with the families of the victims of this senseless act of violence.

The Sixteenth Street Baptist Church bombing changed the nature of the conversation in Congress, which had stagnated in the 1950s and early 1960s.

With the strong leadership of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and other leaders in civil society, those four little girls did not die in vain.

The Birmingham bombing galvanized the nation and gave real urgency to the Civil Rights movement, which culminated in the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 less than a year later, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 after that.

I was proud to stand with President Lyndon Johnson as he signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because nothing is more important than ensuring that the rights enshrined in our Constitution are granted to everyone in our society.

In many respects, the movement that was sparked by this tragic bombing 50 years ago continues today. We must continue to make every effort to rid our nation of discrimination of any kind.

Our work today goes beyond voting rights or the right to own property. The battle we must focus on now is one of social justice.

Americans of all walks of life deserve to be treated fairly and decently, whether it's in the workplace, in our businesses, or in political discourse.

As we reflect on this tragedy, let us not forget Dr. King's wise words, which he penned from a Birmingham Jail 50 years ago this month.

He said, ``Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1120, the Preventing Greater Uncertainty in Labor-Management Relations Act.

This bill's very title is fundamentally misleading. H.R. 1120 will, in fact, lead to more uncertainty in labor-management relations. The bill is part and parcel to the Republicans' ongoing war against working American men, women, and their families. Its purpose is nothing less than the wholesale abrogation of the right of workers to protect themselves from unfair labor practices.

H.R. 1120 will neuter the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and give employers greater rein to intimidate workers who have the temerity to try to organize or protest unjust workplace practices. The bill will prevent the NLRB from certifying union elections, enforcing orders to comply with existing labor laws, and taking to trial employers accused of unfair labor practices.

Mr. Speaker, my father nearly lost his life because of his union activities. All he sought to do was make a better life for himself and his family. He lost his job and was sent west to die of tuberculosis, which very well could have happened if not for the Union Printers Home and the union of which he was a founding member. I will not stand idly by as my Republican colleagues seek to destroy his productive legacy. H.R. 1120 is another legislative expression of the contempt in which my Republican colleagues hold American working men and women and the unions they founded for their protection. I am grateful that this bill will never be taken up by the Senate, much less signed by the President. It saddens me, however, that Republicans continue their march at every opportunity to demolish the capacity of the federal government to protect the health and well-being of Americans not fortunate enough to have been born with silver spoons in their mouths.

I urge my colleagues to vote down this shameless excuse for a bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor my dear friend, David Curson, on the occasion of his retirement.

Many of you know David from his seven weeks of service in the House during the 112th Congress representing Michigan's 11th district. He was elected with the help of community activists, including his beloved United Auto Workers, to fill a vacancy for the shortest term in recent memory. While he was here, David unflinchingly stood up for working American families, always remembering his roots back in Michigan and Ohio. His time in the House was not wasted: His was a key vote in avoiding the fiscal cliff this past January. It was a tough one to take, but David did so with the greater good in mind, as he has always done. His service here was nothing short of honorable, and the Michigan Delegation is better off for his having a part of it.

David's service to his fellowman far predated his time in Congress. He proudly served his country as a Marine in Vietnam. When he returned to the United States, David started a life-long career at Ford and with the United Auto Workers, particularly Local 898 in Rawsonville, Michigan. David has held nearly every imaginable position in the Union, from chairman of the Local UAW/Ford Joint Apprenticeship Committee to Director of Special Projects and Economic Analysis to Executive Assistant to the UAW's President, Vice President, and Secretary Treasurer. He led contract negotiations that saved thousands of American jobs and helped set the standard for job security agreements in North America. In short, David has devoted his life to his fellow working men and women and done a magnificent job for them.

Mr. Speaker, I am humbled and grateful to call David my friend. His dedication to social justice and public service are example to us all, and one which I hope we will all heed. I know David's entire family-- from his wonderful wife Sharon, to his children David Jr., Lisa, David II, and Kathryn, to his grandsons Peyton and Parker--all appreciate David's extraordinary life of service and are thrilled to be able to spend more time with him as he retires. To my good friend, David, and his family, I wish health, happiness, and long life.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Senate amendment to the Continuing Resolution before us today to continue funding our government in a more prudent manner than was seen in the House Republican measure. I believe that funding of our Nation's most essential programs must continue at a responsible level, and I'm disappointed in the constant partisan politics being played with the important financial matters of our country.

While I still believe that this constant week-to-week, Continuing Resolution funding of our government is irresponsible and incomplete, it is necessary to ensure that our seniors and veterans can continue to receive the important benefits that they deserve, ensure proper funding for our state and local law enforcement programs that protect our communities, and a continued investment in scientific research that will help us to lead the world in discovery and opportunity.

I'm disappointed that this Continuing Resolution does nothing to address the harsh automatic budget cuts of sequestration, does not

reinstate proper funding of the much-needed protections authorized in the Affordable Care Act and Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform laws, and leaves in place broad cuts to environmental protection and food safety and inspection that keep us safe.

But, simply put, this measure will prevent a government shutdown and keep our Nation moving forward, and I believe it will allow us ample time to come together on a 2014 budget that I know the American people are owed and deserve. We cannot afford to keep bringing this great Nation to the brink of the fiscal cliff for nothing more than purely misguided political reasons. It does nothing but further jeopardize the certainty that the American people need, now more than ever, to ensure that their family or small business can find success and prosper.

While at it's very core I find this measure incomplete, I will support it and hope that my colleagues agree to come together, craft a budget that properly funds our Nation that can be signed into law by the President, and work each and every day hereafter to put our country back on a path to fiscal responsibility and prosperity.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H. Con. Res. 25, the fiscal year (FY) 2014 budget resolution. Once again, this body is considering another misguided budget that asks seniors and middle class Americans to make great sacrifices so the wealthiest among us can get a tax cut. While supporters of this budget claim they deserve credit for producing a budget that balances, this is not a balanced plan, nor a serious one.

The Republican budget is a slippery, dishonest collection of old, failed ideas that the American people roundly rejected in the last election. Some say that this budget plan represents a serious attempt to reform Medicare; in fact, nothing could be farther from the truth. It ends Medicare as we know it by creating a voucher program which would shift costs to our seniors. It also repeals the Affordable Care Act which is already providing critical benefits to those in need across our country and that has been affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court as constitutional. By reopening the Medicare prescription drug coverage gap, beneficiaries would see their costs increase by over $13,000 from now through 2022. This is not the treatment our seniors deserve, and I know we can do better for them.

Instead of making critical investments in our economy to promote growth and create jobs, vital domestic programs would face drastic cuts. The entire mandatory Pell grant program would be cut by $98 billion over 10 years, virtually eliminating the program. Student loan rates would rise from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent in July, which would have a negative impact on college students across the nation. The budget also doubles down on the disastrous sequester and goes even further than that by cutting an extra $55 billion from domestic discretionary spending in FY 2014 alone. To top it off, the top tax rate would be lowered to 25 percent, costing our nation nearly $6 trillion over 10 years. In order to pay for these disastrous proposals, critical tax deductions for middle class families would be eliminated, leaving the average family with an increase of $3,000 in their tax bill. The priorities of this budget are completely backwards.

I commend the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Van Hollen, for offering a balanced approach in the Democratic substitute budget. This budget replaces the sequester, makes investments which are critical for economic growth, and puts our nation on a sustainable fiscal path. It gives critical support to transportation, education, and small businesses programs which will have a real impact on middle class families and help maintain the upward trajectory of our economy. The Democratic budget also includes $50 billion for immediate surface transportation projects which will create jobs today, in addition to vital tax incentives for the manufacturing sector which has been so critical to our economic recovery. All of these important goals are achieved while continuing the Medicare guarantee for our seniors and generating enough deficit reduction to eliminate the sequester, thereby avoiding losing 750,000 jobs which would occur if sequestration is allowed to continue.

If my Republican colleagues are serious about producing a balanced budget then let us set aside this partisan rhetoric and recycled ideas and come to the table willing and ready to make tough decisions for the benefit of our country. American families across the country make tough decisions about their family's budget on a daily budget. Whether it is postponing that new car purchase, refinancing their homes, or cutting back on the types of groceries they buy, American families do not have the luxury to return to past bad ideas. They have to make the tough decisions now or face losing their home, missing a tuition payment, or having their heat turned off. Instead of debating political documents such as this one, Congress must put aside the political games and come together to find common ground to put our nation on a sustainable fiscal path in the long term while making much needed investments in the short term. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the Republican budget.

Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 803, the SKILLS Act.

What we have before us today is another sorry excuse at legislating dressed up as compassionate conservatism. The SKILLS Act will ensure that disadvantaged populations, like youth, minorities, older workers, and the disabled, continue to suffer disproportionately in hard economic times. These are precisely the jobseekers whom the workforce investment system was designed to serve, but the practical effect of the SKILLS Act would be to reduce their access to programs meant to help them find meaningful employment.

Madam CHAIR, the SKILLS Act's justification as a rationalization of worker training programs is nothing more than lip service to the real needs of chronically unemployed Americans. It consolidates 35 separate programs into block grants and attaches few, if any, strings to their use by state governors. In point of fact, the SKILLS Act is an extension of House Republicans' plans for Medicare and Medicaid, which would amount to a decrease in disadvantaged Americans' access to important services. Moreover, the SKILLS Act freezes the Workforce Investment Act's authorization level through 2020, an amount already demonstrated to be woefully inadequate to the needs of the unemployed.

It also grieves me that H.R. 803 eliminates separate training funds for youth programs, eliminates the Disabled Veterans Outreach Program, and eliminates the priority of service delivery for low-income adults or out-of-school youth. These people should be at the front of the line, yet the SKILLS Act cuts them out completely.

Finally, the SKILLS Act severely restricts the participation of unions, community-based organizations, and community colleges on state and local workforce investment boards. Collectively, these organizations have nearly unparalleled experience in proper workforce development and must be a part of any worker training plan.

Madam Chair, H.R. 803 is a dangerous step in the wrong direction. It will not prevent the further erosion of our labor force. The SKILLS Act is another expression of Republican indifference to the crumbling infrastructure that once made this country great. Some things are worth substantial investment, and that includes our workforce. If we don't heed this call, our country will become a second-rate economic power at best.

I urge my colleagues to vote down the SKILLS Act. I further encourage my colleagues to support the Democratic alternative to this bill, the Workforce Investment Act of 2013, and in so doing demonstrate a clear commitment to getting our workforce in shape for the 21st century.

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed to say that I must rise today in opposition to this legislation. Yet again, the House is taking programs that should enjoy bipartisan support--such as the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families--and adding such partisan provisions that make it wholly impossible to support.

In July 2012, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a memo outlining a program for states to consider that would allow for demonstration projects to test alternative job placement performance measures for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) recipients. This was in direct response to the requests from at least 29 states who wanted more flexibility on how they measured work participation. Many of these states requested a waiver so they could focus on more outcome-based measures, rather than job placement rates. The memo released by HHS outlines specific conditions that must be met by a state to receive a waiver: a clear and detailed explanation of how the alternative proposal would increase employment by 20 percent, as well as show that there are clear, measurable goals for work placement.

Unfortunately, my Republican colleagues would have you believe that the Administration is gutting the work requirements under TANF. This could not be further from the truth. In fact it should be obvious to any honest man who is not blind that this proposal does not waive the work requirements. Rather, this is the Administration being responsive to the needs of the states and providing them with more flexibility to test which strategies they think will work best for their residents. This type of state flexibility is routinely called for by Republican colleagues in federal programs, and now that this Administration has embraced the concept, my colleagues want to claim that welfare recipients will be able to stay on welfare and not work. In my experience, when the Administration has heard your complaints and takes the steps necessary to address these complaints you claim victory.

TANF is a necessary and important program that will give families who are struggling a hand-up, not a hand-out. I wish I could vote to reauthorize it today. But I cannot support a baseless partisan measure targeting flexibility for the states to improve this program. As President Clinton said, ``The requirement was for more work, not less.''

I urge my colleagues to reject this nakedly political legislation. Let's do the business of the American people in an honest, thoughtful, and proper way. I would remind my Republican colleagues that you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. The facts are that the Administration's proposal would increase work requirements and increase the ability of Americans to get back to work.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 325, the No Budget, No Pay Act of 2013.

It frustrates me to no end that my Republican colleagues still have not learned their lesson from their earlier failures on matters of similar character. The American people want results, not political gimmicks, which is precisely what this bill is. H.R. 325 does nothing to ensure the long-term stability of markets, promote sustainable economic growth, and protect the credit rating of the United States. Very much the opposite, it is a ``gotcha bill'' that allows House Republicans to thumb their noses at the Senate and blame it for faults in which House Republicans share. I have never been a great lover of the other body, but now is not the time for petulant antics. Now is the time for action in the public interest.

I urge my colleagues to vote down H.R. 325. We have time enough-- though not much--to negotiate a bipartisan increase to the debt ceiling that is not just another stopgap measure creating new problems and risks in the immediate future. That will require good faith and hard work by all who choose to be involved. I choose so, and I hope my colleagues do as well.