Elimination of 2013 Pay Adjustmentby Representative Pete Sessions
Posted on 2013-02-15
SESSIONS. 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.