Others were clearly supportive. Rep. Robert Andrews (D-N.J.), a known yes vote on the bill, said the government should get past this bill and then focus on job creation. "It was ugly getting here but I'm glad we got here," he said.

Rep. Gerry ConnollyGerald (Gerry) Edward ConnollyRepublicans refuse to back opioids bill sponsored by vulnerable Dem Dem lawmaker calls on Fox News to fire Hannity Overnight Energy: Former Pruitt aide alleges more wasteful spending, retaliation | Senate confirms EPA No. 2 | Zinke backs off big park fee increases MORE (D-Va.) argued that cutting government spending would not create jobs, but said there is no choice but to support the bill. "It's a choice between this proposal and catastrophic default tomorrow," he said. Rep. David Scott (D-Ga.) seemed to agree with Connolly's analysis, and stressed the need to avoid a default.

But other Democrats were less clear. House Rules Committee ranking member Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) said she was "extremely disappointed" in the agreement, but did not explicitly say she would oppose the bill.

"Today's agreement will endanger the potential for new jobs, while asking absolutely nothing of those in our country who are the most well-off," she said. "As the debt debate continues, I urge my colleagues to look toward a balanced approach, and return this country to its rightful place, as a shining sample of democracy and equality for which we should once again aspire."

Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) was also unclear, although he argued that the debt does not ask the wealthy to help close the revenue gap that the federal government faces.

-- This story was updated at 4:47 p.m. to reflect the vote on the rule.