Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

I believe that excessive government regulations are a significant barrier to private sector job growth and the creation of those jobs. House Republicans have made job creation a priority, and, as a result, we must work to ensure that the Federal Government reviews new regulations to ensure that their proposed benefit outweighs any potential economic harm.

My amendment today is simple. It requires the SEC to include an assessment of anticipated jobs gained or lost as a result of implementation of any major rule and to specify whether those jobs will come from the public or private sector.

Mr. Chairman, according to a study released by the Small Business Administration in 2010, Federal regulations cost small businesses $1.75 trillion every year to comply. That is money which could be used by American companies to hire new employees or to reinvest in their own business. H.R. 1062 ensures that the Federal Government does not unnecessarily burden American companies with cumbersome regulations by guaranteeing that those regulations are appropriate and necessary. My amendment adds to this review process by making sure that we have a more comprehensive understanding of the economic impacts a regulation creates.

I believe that the amendment I offer today serves to strengthen the underlying legislation by insisting that the SEC begin to focus on job creation, specifically by enabling the private sector, not furthering a liberal agenda that is intentionally harming families, job creation, and small business across America.

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. I support the underlying bill and legislation that the gentleman from New Jersey brings to the floor today.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, today we're having a vigorous debate about President Obama's health care bill. The reason why we're doing this is that there have been seven or eight different provisions already that have been repealed from this bill in the last 2 years because either it was fraud, it was onerous, or it would not work.

The reason why we are on the floor today is not to waste time, but to give the American people, through representative government, an opportunity to say we now know more about that bill that was not read.

Here's what we know: we know that it is a trillion-dollar-plus spending bill--trillion dollars that would have been in Americans' pockets to make their own decisions about their health care, but now it is flowing to the Federal Government. And what it is doing is arbitrarily causing our country--and this is based upon the laws that are already in place in this country of what will happen to the debt of our country. President Obama and Democrats have led us to trillion- dollar deficits every single year the President has been in office.

This is just the beginning. At some point our country will cease to become what it is--a great Nation--because we will join the likes of Eastern Europe. And it is directly because of tax increases and ObamaCare, which limits the size of small business and businesses that want to get under this threshold of 50 employees. So it arbitrarily will diminish the dreams of Americans who want to build their business from a small business to a larger business simply to avoid the IRS, who will be in their business about health care.

So the Rules Committee is, rightfully so, bringing this bill to the floor--another time--for the American people who are saying--not only publicly in polls, but through their Representatives--this is not a pathway we want to keep going on.

We have to stop the bankruptcy of American business. We need to go back to where we have a vibrant economy, where college graduates at least stand a chance to be able to have a job and to move our country forward.

I thank the gentleman from Texas for the time.

Mr. Speaker, just a few hours ago we had an opportunity to welcome the President of South Korea to this great body to listen to her words about how America, through not only our foreign policy but also with our United States military, helped South Korea to overcome the forces of Communism from the north and from China.

We heard the President speak about the economic growth and vitality of her people, of the Korean people who want more and better friendship with America. But the underlying theme was economic freedom--freedom for her people, freedom for people to make their own decisions. This is consistent with the message that we heard from the last head of a foreign government speaker we had, from Mexico, who spoke about how Mexico is going to aim for GDP growth of 6 percent.

Mr. Speaker, it is time that we here in America catch on to what our allies are doing all across the globe, and that is seeking economic freedom, economic growth, and jobs for all of their people. We should be doing the same thing in this country. Mr. Speaker, that's why the Republican Party is trying to grow jobs and make sure life is better for Americans now.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 202 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the ranking member of the Committee on Rules, the gentlewoman from New York, my friend (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

House Resolution 202 provides for a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 807. This rule provides for discussion opportunities for Members of the minority and the majority to participate in this debate.

Today, Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity to guarantee the full faith and credit of the United States for generations to come by ensuring that our Nation will never default on our debt obligations.

Functionally, H.R. 807, the Full Faith and Credit Act of 2013, ensures that the Treasury Department will continue to make payments on the principal and interest of our debt, including debt held by the Social Security trust fund, in the event that the statutory debt limit is reached. Requiring the Treasury to make good on its obligations to the Social Security trust fund will ensure that those funds are available to honor our commitment to seniors and disabled Americans.

Moreover, H.R. 807 provides certainty to investors, small businesses, retirees, pension beneficiaries, and international markets that we will never negatively impact our economy by allowing this Nation to default on its debts.

In the larger sense, it is our opportunity to engage, in a public forum, the Treasury Department and the administration on what we believe is the right way to engage in discussions about how we will move forward in uncharted territories as it's dealing with the financial difficulties of our country.

However, today's debate is symptomatic of the larger problem. For far too long, our Federal Government has spent too much money and borrowed too much. We have spent money and not listened to the American people, nor looked ahead at the consequences of spending too much, saving too little, and not creating jobs that will help to sustain the American Dream, the next generation, and the systems which we hold so dear to the American system.

House Republicans however, today, come to the floor, under the leadership of our great Ways and Means Chairman, Dave Camp, and some ideas that have come from Congressman Tom McClintock of California, and we are working on ideas with commonsense solutions to cut wasteful spending, reform entitlement programs, and balance the budget in a way that furthers our country, strengthens what we do, and makes sure we are ready for tomorrow.

Yet at almost every turn, including yesterday, up in the Rules Committee upstairs, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have opposed pro-growth agendas and pushed for higher taxes and more spending. It happens almost every single day, every single bill that we bring before the Rules Committee, a demand to increase spending and increase taxes.

Our Nation does not have a taxing problem. It has a spending problem; and until we enact meaningful reforms, we will not improve our dire financial dilemma and the circumstances that come with trying to manage a problem instead of a growth opportunity to make our country stronger.

Today, the American economy is struggling and has been struggling now in our fifth year to regain momentum and is burdened by massive amounts of Federal spending and Federal debt. Allowing our Nation to default would severely hinder what little growth there is, potentially causing the U.S. to slip back into another recession and risk another downgrading of our credit rating.

For these reasons, default is unacceptable; and that is why House Republicans, we think weeks, perhaps months ahead of trying to finally address this issue, we think it's time that our ideas are on the floor of the House of Representatives, talking openly, not just among ourselves and with the administration, but also the American people. And that is the purpose of us being here today.

House Republicans are willing to work with our colleagues in the Senate, as well, and also at the White House; and we'd like to find a compromise that would raise the debt limit, while simultaneously enacting meaningful legislation that will fix our Nation's broken tax system.

We need to create jobs through job enrichment, through a Tax Code that is vibrant and does not harm job creation, that does not do things that would cause people to want to not invest in this country because of taxes that are out of control and spending that harms their business.

So we want to rein in our out-of-control spending and reform our ballooning entitlement programs to preserve them for generations to come. It should be our responsibility.

We, as Members of Congress, were elected by the people, and we should be able to come and face tough issues with good answers. We should not try and scare people back home. We should be able to tell the truth about the legislation, and we need to be honest about the circumstances of the pathway that we remain on because of our President's and the Democrats' agenda.

So, unfortunately, President Obama has already stated that he is unwilling to negotiate with the House or the Senate over the debt limit.

It is this President when he was a Senator who voted repeatedly against a debt limit increase, called it irresponsible and a lack of leadership; and yet today he says just give him all the power, he'll take care of this himself. As such, the bill before us today is a necessary and prudent safety net designed to avoid economic calamity

should we reach the debt limit and not have resolved that between the House, the Senate, and the President.

I applaud Congressman Tom McClintock, my dear friend from California, and our great young chairman from Michigan, Dave Camp, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. Each of them brings their work product to the floor today, as well as many of our other colleagues such as my Rules Committee member, the young man from Orlando, Florida, Dan Webster, who brought forth ideas that would help shape not only the legislation that we have today, but the desire of the Republican conference to make sure that we continue to talk about the issues and problems that we see before they become a crisis, before they become something that is unworkable and rather to share our great ideas now. So for the timeless work on this issue, I thank all three of them for working on this bill today.

I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes.'' I encourage them to vote ``yes'' on the rule, I encourage them to be thoughtful and truthful about the legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, one of the Members of Congress that I spoke about that not only brought pieces of this legislation to the Ways and Means Committee but really as part of the debate for our conference and to the American people is our next speaker.

I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Elk Grove, California (Mr. McClintock).

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

We've had an opportunity once again today, as we did yesterday, to hear from the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Michigan. He brought his ideas, the best ideas he had, up to the Rules Committee yesterday on this same issue.

But the issues that the gentleman speaks about are attacking our answers. Their answer that they propose is tax increases and spending increases, and that way we'll simply have more money into the system. Because as we've already heard today just a few minutes ago, the more money we give in unemployment compensation, the more vitality is in our cities, more spending takes place, more unemployment compensation, more vitality, more spending in our cities.

Mr. Speaker, that's the wrong way to go. The Republican Party does not believe that we should create a permanent underclass of people who receive unemployment compensation or who are afraid of facing the truth about where this country is headed.

The facts of the case are other countries are ahead of us on this curve. Most of them are in Europe, and they ignored the signs that Republicans are here talking about today, the signs of spending too much, relying on its people to raise taxes for them to bring money in, and a big government continuing to put rules and regulations and impediments in front of people.

The facts of the case are simple. We are here today because it is President Obama and the Democrats who spent too much money, who are destroying jobs, and who even today are holding back the Keystone pipeline, what could be thousands of jobs for people in this country, lessen our reliance on other parts of the world for our energy, and bring back American-made jobs. This is exactly why we are having problems.

So, it's the Republican Party that is trying to offer a public discussion, a public debate, including our great Speaker, John Boehner, who says we need to make sure that part of the debate comes down to, if we get to that point, that we pay back the people who loaned us money in the first place. They need to have confidence that they can continue loaning us money because we are still having to borrow a lot of money.

I can think of few things that would be worse than to publicly announce we are going to pay somebody else before we pay back our creditors. That is how creditors no longer lend any money to you.

So, what Republicans are doing is having a public debate. We are bringing this to the floor. And I do recognize our friends on the other side, our Democrat friends, that they want to spend more and tax more. They have never seen enough spending in this place. They want more and more. They are like our President--they have an insatiable appetite to spend people's money. And then, like, literally, somebody who started a fire, is an arsonist, show up as the firefighter, the hero, to say, but I want to save our country.

They created the economic malaise that we have. It is overspending, it's holding back job creation, and Republicans are going to stand on the floor and have this debate with the media and the American people and the administration and say, let's know what we are going to do when we get there months ahead of time so that we don't falter like we did some time ago, and take on the President's idea again of sequestration only to have him argue against his own idea later and then try to mislead the American public what this whole issue is about. It's about the economic demise of the United States of America and how we are having to work here to make sure that we publicly discuss this before it becomes too late.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge Mr. Cooper's presence here today. His idea was valid and, in fact, was utilized in what we have done.

The slight difference of how I'd like to describe this to the gentleman is: we did not say that Members cannot be paid. What we said is that no new debt can be used to pay Members. So, if we're spending 40 percent too much money today and if 60 percent were coming in, we could be paid out of that amount, but we could not be paid out of the debt-side amount, which is what this legislation is about and why this legislation is germane.

I do thank the gentleman. I thank the gentleman for his idea that Members of Congress should equally suffer or equally gain as the American people have. In this circumstance, it's a loss for all of us, and that is why Chairman Camp included this as an amendment. It was to make sure that we clarified: As part of this bill, Members of Congress could not be paid with new debt that was being brought to the United States.

So I hope that clarifies not only the success that we believe that Mr. Cooper brought with his ideas but also the intent of what this legislation actually does, what we spoke about in the Rules Committee and the fine line between paying a Member and whether it comes from new debt or whether it comes from operating entities that would be within the 60 percent that would not be the new debt. I hope this clarifies not only what we are trying to do but that we speak forthrightly to Members about what this legislation actually is.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 5 minutes to the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, the Member from the Fifth District of Texas, the gentleman from Dallas, Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

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

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Except for my final close, I do not. And I thank the gentlewoman.

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

I have been around this place a long time, and I've heard of people who did not read bills. I have heard of people who did not understand bills, but I have never seen a circumstance such as today where the truth was being held hostage.

The facts of the case are very simple. Republicans today are offering a mechanism to the President of the United States and the American people that says, if we do get in a circumstance where we do not extend our debt to further allow the Federal Government to buy more debt to pay its obligations, then we offer this opportunity, and that is that the government can, even when we're in a circumstance where we cannot borrow more money, and let's say we spend 60 percent that we get money in but 40 percent is the debt that we can no longer have available to pay our obligations, about a 60/40 split, then we're allowing the Federal Government to go borrow more debt to pay its obligations so that it doesn't compete against the money that does come in to pay the bills of the United States as the President of the United States would choose.

I've never heard of a more reasonable option. We're not telling the President how to spend the money. We're giving authorization for new debt to pay our debt obligations. That's not cutting people off. It's not truthful to say we're going to do that. Anybody that tells you that didn't read the bill.

What this is about is to say, if we go into a debt circumstance where we cannot come to an agreement, then we are authorizing the Federal Government, the Treasury, to go get more debt, only enough to pay debt obligations to where we do not default, and then we work on the circumstances of how much money comes in.

This has been miscast. The truth has been held hostage, and I am disappointed in Members of Congress who came down here and misled the American people about what this bill is. It is nothing more than allowing the Treasury to go borrow money to pay its already obligations to people who loaned us money. It says nothing about how they will pay normal bills to people. And to come to this floor and to suggest this is simply a disservice to the obligations I think that we have to be open and honest about what our job is.

I urge my colleagues to understand the simplification of what this bill is about, to not try to twist it to have it become something that it is not. I hope my colleagues will vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 1406, the piece of legislation that we will be debating today, the Working Families Flexibility Act of 2013. I am proud of the work that my friend Congresswoman Martha Roby has done on this important bill. This legislation makes life easier for American families by giving them an additional tool to balance the demands of their family and workplace life.

As the father of boys, I know it takes a lot of time to help not only raise them, but to prepare them for their future. But I also had a job in the private sector; and I know that there are times when people in the private sector need the flexibility to do like I did, to take their boys to a Boy Scout campout or a wrestling tournament.

Currently, public sector workers have the flexibility to convert their overtime into comp time off. Labor unions include similar provisions in collective bargaining agreements with their employees. America's private sector workers deserve the same option that union workers have.

I look forward to supporting this legislation on the floor and encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 7 o'clock and 5 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, May 8, 2013, at 9 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during further consideration of H.R. 624 in the Committee of the Whole, pursuant to House Resolution 164, the last amendment in House Report 113-41 be modified in the form that I have placed at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman, my dear friend from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), not only for managing his rule, but for the time that he has invested not into just this issue, but the issues that come before the Rules Committee, and I want to thank him for his service.

I also want to thank, if I can, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings)--welcome back to the committee after a couple of days of being out with surgery--and for the vigorous hearing that we had yesterday at the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, we had an opportunity to have Mr. Ruppersberger, the leader for the Democrats from the Intelligence Committee, as well as Mike Rogers from Michigan, the chairman of the committee. Both came and vigorously talked about the things which are aimed at our country-- cyber threats, nation-states, nations such as China, North Korea, and others who are trying to invade our Internet here in the United States and to steal not only information and data, but also thoughts, ideas, and money. So it gave

us an opportunity yesterday to have a great hearing, one which was full of detail, one which really offered intrigue by our Members and a lot of thought process by all those who came before the committee.

However, I would like to advise, if I can, that following the closing statements on the rule before us, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) will be offering an amendment to the rule that seeks to address concerns with the role of civilian Federal agencies in receiving the cyber information that would be transmitted from the private sector that is included in the underlying bill. This amendment was in negotiation yesterday and submitted for consideration to the Rules Committee, but the final compromise was not ready at the time that the committee finished its work product yesterday evening, so negotiations continued all last night and through this morning until today.

On a bipartisan basis, these negotiations have given us what I consider to be a good amendment with good merits and should be considered under this rule. The amendment has been vetted thoroughly by the five committees which share jurisdiction in this matter, including Ranking Members Thompson and Ruppersberger, and, by the way, my colleague, the ranking member of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter.

If the rule is amended, the language would be offered by Mr. McCaul, the chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security. I'm confident that this work product and the work which we are bringing to this floor will continue to support not just the rule, but the legislation that would be before this House tomorrow by the Rules Committee.

So I believe that this helps not just the underlying bill, but really is a testament to the work on a bipartisan basis among our committees, among a lot of people who had a chance to look at not just jurisdictional issues, but the actual substance of trying to make protecting this country, its assets, and its people a reality now in law that the United States House of Representatives will fully debate tomorrow, vote on, and support.

Part of the role of the Rules Committee about this process has been to make sure that the final product that came to the floor of the House of Representatives was well vetted, received the attention that was necessary, and, perhaps more importantly, was leading-edge.

And, lastly, the most important thing is that we know what we've agreed to; that we know what we've agreed to where we're very clear about what the law is and the expectations of that performance.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, Members of Congress have just come back now from 2 weeks of recess being at home. And group after group after group that I spoke with talked about exactly the same thing that the previous speaker and others are talking about, and that is jobs, job creation, and the opportunity for our children, and sometimes our spouses, to get back into the jobs marketplace.

I remind the people of Dallas, Texas, that there's really a tale of two States or two cities. One is Dallas, Texas, and the other is Chicago, Illinois, the State of Illinois vs. Texas.

Texas, over the last few years, has created more jobs than the other 49 States combined. The reason why we've done this is because we chose not to do the path that Illinois has done, and that is, raising taxes, lowering job expectations and performance, and the ability for people to want to invest in that State and their future.

Mr. Speaker, that's exactly the same background and philosophy that our President and Democrats are having to run jobs out of America. I stand for the Texas model, lowering taxes and making sure we have jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia, who sits on the Rules Committee and who also sits on the Budget Committee and is doing an awesome job on behalf of this body and the people of Georgia.

Today, the American people have a chance, really, to see firsthand the rolling out of what we call the Ryan budget. Paul Ryan, who is the chairman of our Budget Committee, once again leads, I believe, the intellectual thought process on talking about the future that we should have in this country. Certainly, the budget is that primer--that guiding post, that opportunity for us to lay out a philosophy about what Republicans stand for. Today, the American people are having a chance to hear from our colleagues, the Democrats.

Of course, as you listen to our colleagues--our friends, the Democrats--talk, everything about a budget, if you're a Republican, is about harming the middle class, is about ruining the country, is about our heading in the wrong direction. That is because they've taken the simple approach. They will try and fund everything: they will try and fund hospitals; they will fund airports; they will fund schools. They will do all of these amazing things, but the facts of the case are that that process and that future do not work.

Yesterday, Paul Ryan, before the Rules Committee, very carefully argued the point that really is embodied on this slide, which talks about a responsible way forward for this country, because, you see, we have the authority and the responsibility to make sure that what we do sustains our future: that it's something that creates not only more jobs but opportunities for the future of not just ourselves but of our children and our grandchildren.

For 4 years, this House was led by Democrats, and you can see the laws that they passed and the amazing amount of spending that it would place upon our country. We don't even show in here individually where Social Security is as that will go bankrupt--Medicare, bankrupt; Medicaid, insolvent; our inability to be able to pay for our future by creating jobs today.

The free enterprise system is exactly what Republicans support and believe in because that is the American Dream--not government spending and government jobs but, rather, a vibrant free enterprise system whereby there are employers who want to hire people to become employees, to have careers, to then make this country better and stronger. The way you do that is by lowering government spending, by having a public-private partnership, not by having the Federal Government be responsible for everything from a one-

size-fits-all health care industry to the government control of every part of our lives.

So, yesterday, Paul Ryan--very effectively, I believe--came before the House Rules Committee and talked about a vision forward. What's very interesting is that everybody else talked about let's just stick it to the rich. Let's raise taxes trillions of dollars. Let's go and stick it to special interests, like people who provide gasoline at the pump, and raise taxes on oil companies. Well, ladies and gentlemen, every time you raise taxes, you raise prices, and every time you raise prices, the consumer has to pay more for it. These are the ideas that make America less able to be prepared for its future and that cost more money.

That's why, when you look at this slide, you see where the laws already enacted by the Democrats are leading America to where we will be functionally bankrupt. We are following the European model--exactly what they have done over there for a number of years--and now we are seeing firsthand Iceland, Greece and, just yesterday, Cyprus. This is the pathway down which our friends, the Democrats, if they get their say, will lead us.

Republicans, through Paul Ryan, spoke about we want to make sure that Medicare, that Social Security, that the free enterprise system are alive and well by making these plans and the process therein ready for the employers and the workers of tomorrow. That is what we are talking about. We are talking about reforms that will ensure the things that the American people want and need--and, yes, even at the National Institutes of Health so that they will be prepared for our future.

Mr. Speaker, this is what we're talking about today. I can't wait until Paul Ryan and the Republicans engage Democrats on the floor with facts and figures. This is a primer to what we'll see.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to endorse the resumption of Trade Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA) negotiations between the United States and the Republic of China (Taiwan). After five years of inaction, I was pleased to see these important talks get underway once again.

I believe that much progress was made during the previous rounds of TIFA talks and that improvements were made in intellectual property protection in particular. Furthermore, I am aware that many other challenges, including the need for even stronger intellectual property protection safeguards and market access for many American products, need to be resolved.

I have had the pleasure of meeting with many officials of the Taiwanese government, and I am pleased to hear of their willingness to come forward and resume talks to improve our mutual trading relationship. Many of these trading differences can be best resolved through the resumption of active bilateral negotiations.

Taiwan currently serves as our 10th largest goods trading partner, and has been a long-standing political ally and partner to the United States. Bilateral goods and services trade totaled $85 billion in 2011. Increased economic relations between the United States and Taiwan will provide significant economic advantages to both countries.

I am proud to express my strong support for strengthening the bilateral relationship between the United States and Taiwan. Taiwan is an important ally and trading partner, and we must continue to further our relationship.

I appreciate the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) for leading the discussion tonight in honor of the great Member of Congress from the Third Congressional District, Sam Johnson. I want to take a few minutes tonight to not just acknowledge how great Sam Johnson is to the Texas delegation but really to highlight what he means to this body.

Sam Johnson has been a Member of this body since 1991. He came in a special election as a result of a hard-fought race in Dallas, Texas, when Congressman Steve Bartlett stepped down. And Sam Johnson came to the United States Congress not just with a background of 29 years of serving in the United States Air Force as being a top gun pilot and a man who had served this country in war and at the Hanoi Hilton, but he came here with thoughts and ideas about his home of Texas, representing Collin County and Dallas County, Texas.

It's not just a high honor for us to have Sam as our Member of Congress at that time and currently, but Sam came to this body with ideas that he felt like would make our country stronger and better. More than just respect for the flag and respect for the men and women that serve in our military, but really for respect for human life and individuals, he believes that individuals make our country stronger and better; and he has devoted his life, the times we fly back and forth, Sam talks about how important people are and people's dreams, people back home. He remembers not just the stories about individuals, but I think he idolizes hard work and people who commit themselves to the sacrifice for others.

Sam is known in this body for several years now as the most admired Member of Congress. And he's not the most admired Member of Congress because of just being a nice man--and that he is--but really for standing up and talking about the values of this country, the values of this country, what we stand for and how he wants it to be even better.

He and Shirley have, for years, stood up across Texas and across this country and talked about how important we are if we sacrifice to make others' lives better, if we leave our country better than the way we found it. And so tonight on behalf of the people of the 32nd Congressional District, which is Dallas, which is right next to Congressman Sam Johnson, I stand up and applaud the life of Sam Johnson, his service to our country, not just the United States Air Force and the American people, but also the man that calls home Plano, Texas, and the Third Congressional District, our great friend and colleague, Congressman Sam Johnson.

So, Sam, congratulations. Congratulations for not just a job well done but for the 40 years that you have been back home and what you have done to your life as a result of the service for what you believe was the right thing to do.

I thank the gentleman from Texas, Judge Poe, for the time.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform yielding me this time this morning.

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot being said about this deal that we're now engaged in, sequestration. But I believe, looking back, and I believed it at the time, that the people who engaged in the idea did this because they never really wanted to live up to it. They put forth an idea, the President of the United States, the White House, and our friends on the other side of the building, and some, I'm sure, on this side. They cut a deal to avoid the reality that the President of the United States was engaged in with us trying to resolve differences that we had about excessive spending.

The facts of the case are a deal was cut. This came directly out of the White House, and it was to avoid having to make a tough decision at the time. And I don't know this--I wasn't in the meetings--but I'm sure it was something that they thought would never happen. That's not serious. When the President of the United States offers a compromise that was his idea and it's signed into law, that's law, and that's what we're counting on and that's what the American people count on.

We in this body, Republicans, stood by a deal that was cut. Now, I don't like the deal, but this House twice, the House of Representatives has twice passed a plan that says we think there's a better way to do it. There's been nothing that's been countered by the White House or by the Senate. We've not been engaged. The President of the United States is engaged in spinning, by traveling on Air Force One around the country, the ideas that don't help us solve the problem but that make matters worse.

I think what we did then was a tough decision, and I'm sorry to hear now that we're being blamed for accepting a compromise out of the White House. I know what's happening, and so do you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged concurrent resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.