[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 176 (Thursday, December 12, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H7702-H7714]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.J. RES. 59, 
CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS RESOLUTION, 2014; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION 
 OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES; PROVIDING FOR PROCEEDINGS DURING THE 
 PERIOD FROM DECEMBER 14, 2013, THROUGH JANUARY 6, 2014; AND FOR OTHER 
                                PURPOSES

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 438 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 438

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to take from the Speaker's table the joint 
     resolution (H.J. Res. 59) making continuing appropriations 
     for fiscal year 2014, and for other purposes, with the House 
     amendment to the Senate amendment thereto, and to consider in 
     the House, without intervention of any point of order, a 
     motion offered by the chair of the Committee on the Budget or 
     his designee that the House recede from its amendment and 
     concur in the Senate amendment with the amendment printed in 
     part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution modified by the amendment printed in part B 
     of that report. The Senate amendment and the motion shall be 
     considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for 70 
     minutes, with 60 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
     Budget and 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy 
     and Commerce. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the motion to its adoption without intervening 
     motion or demand for division of the question.
       Sec. 2.  The chair of the Committee on the Budget may 
     insert in the Congressional Record at any time during the 
     remainder of the first session of the 113th Congress such 
     material as he may deem explanatory of the motion specified 
     in the first section of this resolution.
       Sec. 3.  In the engrossment of the House amendment to the 
     Senate amendment to House Joint Resolution 59, the Clerk may 
     conform division, title, and section numbers and conform 
     cross-references and provisions for short titles.
       Sec. 4.  The chair of the Committee on Armed Services may 
     insert in the Congressional Record at any time during the 
     remainder of the first session of the 113th Congress such 
     material as he may deem explanatory of defense authorization 
     measures for the fiscal year 2014.
       Sec. 5.  It shall be in order at any time on the 
     legislative day of December 12, 2013, or December 13, 2013, 
     for the Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend 
     the rules as though under clause 1 of rule XV. The Speaker or 
     his designee shall consult with the Minority Leader or her 
     designee on the designation of any matter for consideration 
     pursuant to this section.
       Sec. 6.  On any legislative day of the first session of the 
     One Hundred Thirteenth Congress after December 13, 2013--
        (a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day 
     shall be considered as approved; and
       (b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned 
     to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4, 
     section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by 
     the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
       Sec. 7.  On any legislative day of the second session of 
     the One Hundred Thirteenth Congress before January 7, 2014--
        (a) the Speaker may dispense with organizational and 
     legislative business;
       (b) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day 
     shall be considered as approved if applicable; and
       (c) the Chair at any time may declare the House adjourned 
     to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4, 
     section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by 
     the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
       Sec. 8.  The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the 
     duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed 
     by sections 6 and 7 as though under clause 8(a) of rule I.
       Sec. 9.  Each day during the period addressed by sections 6 
     and 7 of this resolution shall not constitute a calendar day 
     for purposes of section 7 of the War Powers Resolution (50 
     U.S.C. 1546).
       Sec. 10.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3695) to 
     provide a temporary extension of the Food, Conservation, and 
     Energy Act of 2008 and amendments made by that Act, as 
     previously extended and amended and with certain additional 
     modifications and exceptions, to suspend permanent price 
     support authorities, and for other purposes. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. The 
     amendment printed in part C of the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as 
     adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill, as 
     amended, are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
     except: (1) 40 minutes of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Agriculture; and (2) one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.
       Sec. 11.  The requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a 
     two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on 
     Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is waived 
     with respect to any resolution reported through the 
     legislative day of December 13, 2013.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to my friend from New York (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. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOODALL. As we are doing housekeeping here at the beginning, Mr. 
Speaker, I would also like to include a section-by-section analysis of 
provisions within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules in the 
Record.
  Mr. Speaker, I won't speak for my friend from New York, but I enjoy 
the

[[Page H7703]]

Rules Committee debate when it begins with such a long reading from the 
reading clerk, Mr. Speaker, because you know you are involved in 
something special on a day like today. If it was just an ordinary rule, 
we would be done with that reading in 15 or 20 seconds, and we would 
move on to debate. But the rule today, Mr. Speaker, is taking on a 
number of challenges.
  We are trying to move a budget conference report forward. This rule 
makes an opportunity for us to have that debate here on the floor of 
the House.
  We are trying to move an SGR fix, what they call the sustainable 
growth rate, Mr. Speaker. That is that provision that threatens to cut 
double digits from the reimbursement rates of physicians, hindering the 
access of seniors to their Medicare benefits. We are trying to solve 
that here today, again, bringing forward a bipartisan, bicameral 
solution to that.
  Also, we are providing for an opportunity to extend the farm bill 
language. We have gotten so close to a bicameral, bipartisan solution 
to the farm bill, Mr. Speaker, that those folks who are deeply involved 
in those negotiations tell us, if they could just get 30 more days, 
they will be able to get that done for the first time in far, far too 
long. This rule makes that debate available here on the floor of the 
House.
  Finally, in terms of housekeeping, there are so many other provisions 
that are being worked on, again, Mr. Speaker, in a bipartisan, 
bicameral way, bills that are almost ready to go to the desk of the 
President of the United States to be signed into law, to address so 
many of the issues that are of concern to men and women across this 
country. This rule makes any provision that the House deems necessary 
available to be considered on the same day.
  Now, I just want to be clear. As my colleague from New York knows, 
that is not the way we like to do business in this Chamber. There are a 
lot of serious Members in this Chamber, and every single one of them 
deserves an opportunity to review legislation before it comes to the 
floor, and so we have made a very strong commitment throughout this 
Congress to provide a 3-day layover for folks to review legislation. 
But during this season, with so many issues so close to fruition, 
issues that we have been working on, not for a day, not for a week, but 
issues that we have been working on collectively for months, those 
issues are almost ready to come to the floor, and so we waived that 
requirement that those bills lay over to make it possible for us to get 
as much of the people's business done as is allowable by the agreements 
that the House and the Senate come to.
  Mr. Speaker, I have the great pleasure of sitting on the Budget 
Committee and the Rules Committee. In fact, I am only on the Budget 
Committee as the Rules Committee designee. And the proudest votes that 
I have been able to take in this House in my 3 years with the voting 
card of the folks of the Seventh District of Georgia have been on those 
budgets that we have crafted together in the Budget Committee, that we 
have brought to this floor, and that we have passed here on the floor.
  In fact, as you know, Mr. Speaker, for far too long, the House has 
been the only institution in town that has been able to pass a budget. 
The Senate joined those ranks this year for the first time in a long 
time, and I am proud to have them here. But we have been getting that 
business done. What we haven't been able to do is to then take the 
budget that the House has passed and combine it with a budget that the 
Senate has passed in order to create a vision of the United States of 
America for the coming years.
  Candidly, Mr. Speaker, with what I have seen in this town, with what 
I read of the differing opinions that are on each side of the aisle and 
each side of the Capitol, America didn't have any reason to expect that 
we would be able to come to an agreement this year either. They didn't.
  But we sent one of our best and our brightest, Chairman Paul Ryan of 
the Budget Committee, into those negotiations, and he was joined by one 
of my colleagues from Georgia, Dr. Tom Price, also one of our best and 
brightest, to put that Georgia stamp of approval on where we were 
headed with that budget conference report, and they teamed up with our 
colleagues in the Senate.
  Senator Patty Murray led the Senate side, led the Democratic side, 
let the Senate side. And they worked, again, not for a day, not for a 
week. They worked tirelessly around the clock to try to find an 
agreement that we could come to together.
  Now, I am a person who came here for big ideas, Mr. Speaker. I don't 
think you came here to do the little things. I think you came here to 
do the big things. I know my friend from New York came here to do the 
big things, those things that really make a big difference for America. 
We don't have that big budget deal on the floor. This rule doesn't make 
available debate on a big budget deal. We could not find the big budget 
deal. And for that, I am deeply sorry. I wish that we could have found 
that. But what we did find are those elements of agreement that were 
available to be found.
  In recent weeks, Mr. Speaker, I have grown fond of a quote first 
shared with me by our deputy whip, Peter Roskam. It was from a Thomas 
Jefferson letter to Charles Clay in 1790, and he says this:

       The ground of liberty is to be gained by inches, and we 
     must be contented to secure what we can get from time to time 
     and eternally press forward for what is yet to get. It takes 
     time to persuade men to do even what is for their own good.

  We are in the game of inches here today, Mr. Speaker, and I expect 
you will hear the same thing from my colleague from New York.

                              {time}  1245

  We are going to secure today what we can get from time to time, and 
we are going to eternally press forward for that that is yet to get.
  My sense is my friend from New York is going to eternally press 
forward in this direction, and I am going to be eternally pressing 
forward in this direction, as is the process here, as she follows the 
wishes of her constituents and I follow the directions of mine.
  But we have an opportunity today, for the first time in the 3 years 
that I have served in this body, to come together on a budget agreement 
to get that which we can get before we both wake up tomorrow morning 
and begin to eternally press forward on that which is yet to get.
  I am grateful to those folks who have negotiated this budget deal. I 
am grateful to the folks of the Ways and Means Committee and the Senate 
Finance Committee who have come together to begin to find that 
bicameral, bipartisan SGR solution. I am grateful to my friends on the 
Ag Committee on both sides of the aisle and both sides of the Capitol 
who have been working so long and so hard to find that agreement on the 
farm bill.
  My great hope, Mr. Speaker, is that we are, with the beginning of the 
rule today, laying that framework and that foundation for bipartisan, 
bicameral agreement not just for this hour, not just for this day, but 
for this week and this month and the remainder of this Congress.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.J. Res. 59 Establishing a 
                          Congressional Budget


 Section-by-Section Analysis of Provisions Within the Jurisdiction of 
                         the Committee on Rules

       Section 111. Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Resolution.
       This section establishes a congressional budget for fiscal 
     year 2014 for the purpose of enforcing the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974. The section requires that the chairs of 
     the Committee of the Budget in the House and the Senate 
     submit a statement to the Congressional Record, which 
     includes a committee 302(a) allocation for the Committee on 
     Appropriations consisting of the total discretionary limit 
     set forth in the Act, committee 302(a) allocations for all 
     other House committees, and aggregate spending and revenue 
     levels required for enforcement of section 311 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
       This section also maintains existing authority for the 
     chair of the Committee on the Budget to make further 
     adjustments to reduce the aggregates, allocations, and other 
     budget levels in the statement referred to subsection (b) to 
     reflect the budgetary effects of any legislation enacted 
     during the 113th Congress that reduces the deficit.
       Section 113. Rule of Construction in the House of 
     Representatives.
       This section provides that those provisions of H. Con. Res. 
     25 (113th Congress) necessary for budget enforcement will 
     remain in effect

[[Page H7704]]

     to the extent that budgetary levels are not superseded by 
     other provisions in this subtitle or other action of the 
     House.
       Section 115. Authority for Fiscal Year 2015 Budget 
     Resolution in the House of Representatives.
       The purpose of this section is to ensure that the Committee 
     on the Budget has time to complete consideration of a Budget 
     Resolution for fiscal year 2015 and to preserve the ability 
     of the Committee on Appropriations to begin consideration of 
     its 12 annual funding bills in a timely manner. The Committee 
     on Rules expects that the Committee on the Budget will pursue 
     a budget resolution through regular order in the second 
     session of the 113th Congress. The authority to effectuate 
     the levels and allocations described in this section is only 
     provided after the date by which the Congress is otherwise 
     required to conclude consideration of a concurrent resolution 
     on the budget as prescribed in the Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974. If a concurrent resolution on the budget is adopted 
     by the House and the Senate, this section does not apply.
       This section establishes a congressional budget for fiscal 
     year 2015 for the purpose of enforcing the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974.
       Subsection (b) requires that the chair of the Committee of 
     the Budget in the House of Representatives to submit a 
     statement to the Congressional Record after April 15, 2014, 
     but not later than May 15, 2014. The statement must include a 
     committee 302(a) allocation for the Committee on 
     Appropriations consisting of the total discretionary limit 
     provided for in section 251(c)(2) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, committee 302(a) 
     allocations for all other House committees, and aggregate 
     spending and revenue levels required for enforcement of 
     section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
       Subsection (c) also provides that the statement referred to 
     in subsection (b) may include levels and limitations relating 
     to advance appropriations, reserve funds, and overseas 
     contingency operations/global war on terrorism. The Committee 
     on Rules expects that the Committee on the Budget will base 
     all levels and limitations established pursuant to this 
     subsection on prior practices for determining such levels, 
     including, in the case of advance appropriations and funding 
     for overseas contingency operations/global war on terror, 
     consistency with the President's request for such funding.
       This section also maintains existing authority for the 
     chair of the Committee on the Budget to make further 
     adjustments to reduce the aggregates, allocations, and other 
     budget levels in the statement referred to subsection (b) to 
     reflect the budgetary effects of any legislation enacted 
     during the 113th Congress that reduces the deficit.
       Section 118. Exercise of Rulemaking Powers.
       This section clarifies that the provisions of this Act are 
     enacted as an exercise of the rulemaking powers of the House 
     and Senate, that they are considered part of the rules of 
     each House, and that each House has a constitutional right to 
     change the rules in the same manner that each House may 
     change any other rule.

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the legislation before us today gives 
us a chance to begin to mitigate the worst effects of sequestration; 
but it is not enough, as my colleague has stated.
  Our Nation can--and should--dare to once again dream big. We are a 
Nation that built one of the largest interstate highway systems in the 
world, which is presently crumbling; launched the Internet; pioneered 
the creation of GPS; and created the largest middle class on Earth 
through a fair and balanced Tax Code that asked everyone, including the 
wealthiest among us and the biggest corporations, to pay their fair 
share. We are home to public institutions like the National Institutes 
of Health, which have helped to find the cures for countless diseases 
and conditions and saved millions of lives.
  Great achievements like these are only behind us if we so choose. I 
strongly believe that we can rebuild our crumbling runways, our roads 
and rails, restore our middle class, and invest in the breakthroughs 
that will once again make us the envy of the world. But in order to do 
so, we have to make responsible fiscal choices that are a reflection of 
our values. That means restoring smart and targeted funding to programs 
and agencies that drive our country forward, asking the most fortunate 
among us to pay their fair share--not more than that, but their fair 
share--and protecting the programs that serve hardworking Americans at 
times when they need help the most.
  To that end, it is shameful that the legislation before us does not 
extend unemployment benefits for the 1.3 million Americans who are 
scheduled to lose them within a matter of weeks--3 days after 
Christmas, actually.
  In the United States of America, we believe in providing a hand up, 
not a kick while you are down. Unemployment insurance is that hand up.
  Studies have shown that unemployment insurance allows jobseekers to 
purchase necessities such as groceries and gas without accruing further 
debt. In so doing, it helps to increase economic activity while easing 
the financial burden of unemployed Americans and making it easier, not 
harder, for them--as we are--to find a new job.
  That is why my Democratic colleagues, Representative Levin, 
Representative Van Hollen, and Representative Barbara Lee, introduced 
an amendment in the Rules Committee last night to extend the 
unemployment insurance for an additional 3 months.
  This bill was paid for. I want to make that perfectly clear. It would 
not have cost an extra dime.
  Inexcusably, the majority rejected my colleagues' amendment, despite 
inserting language to fix Medicare payments to doctors over the coming 
year, which is certainly important. Fixing the Medicare payments to 
doctors is a worthy and important goal, but it is certainly troubling--
and should be to all of us--that we are unwilling at the same time to 
ignore the needs of the unemployed.
  The majority's refusal to extend a helping hand to jobless Americans 
stands in stark contrast to the defense of tax loopholes for big 
corporations and powerful special interests. For far too long, our 
Nation has allowed wealthy individuals and powerful corporations to 
hide billions of dollars in offshore bank accounts and create tax 
loopholes instead of paying their fair share.
  Indeed, some corporations in America pay no taxes at all. It is 
unfortunate that not a single one of the loopholes is addressed in the 
bill that is before us today to help us reduce the national debt.
  Despite these shortcomings, today's legislation does take an 
important first step toward easing the painful budget cuts contained in 
sequestration. It has been an unmitigated disaster that has hurt our 
economy and our country, and there is an urgent need to avert the next 
round of budget cuts that are scheduled to take effect. And I am 
grateful for that.
  In a study conducted earlier this year by the Association of American 
Universities, 81 percent of the respondents declared that sequestration 
cuts had immediate and detrimental effects on research activities. 
Seventy percent of the respondents cited delays in research projects, 
and 58 percent of respondents stated that sequestration led to 
reductions in staff, students, and fellows through attrition and 
layoffs.
  A recent study showed that sequestration and other budget cuts have 
resulted in an actual Institutes of Health budget far too low to 
support our biomedical research community.
  In addition to that point, Mr. Speaker, let me say that during the 
government shutdown, which cost the economy $24 billion and was 
useless, of the five Nobel laureates employed by the United States of 
America, only one was declared essential.
  Four Nobel laureates were said to be nonessential. That blows the 
mind, doesn't it?
  These types of drastic budget cuts have profound impacts on our 
country. Reduced funding means that new discoveries and breakthroughs 
are delayed--or never realized--and that our public health knowledge is 
stunted for years to come.
  As a microbiologist, I can tell you that you cannot simply turn 
research off and on like a faucet, but that is exactly what we do when 
we arbitrarily slash the budgets with no regard for the consequences of 
our cuts.
  That is why today's legislation is an important step forward for our 
country. We must end the self-inflicted wound that is sequestration and 
get back to investing in our own well-being and the future of America. 
By restoring funding across our government, we will help to jump-start 
our economy and get back to work on the cutting-edge research and on 
infrastructure that will benefit the Nation in years to come.
  In closing, today's bill is an important step forward, but our work 
is not done until we add an extension of unemployment insurance to this 
legislative package. We will give you an opportunity to do that at the 
end of the

[[Page H7705]]

rule. In so doing, we can ensure a brighter, more prosperous future for 
every American this holiday season.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the gentlelady from New York. I appreciate her mentioning all 
of those things that we are working on together.
  The gentlelady is absolutely right: we had an opportunity in the 
Rules Committee last night to add to these bills that we are 
considering today--these bills that are bicameral, bipartisan solutions 
to a budget; these bills that are bicameral, bipartisan solutions to a 
farm bill; these bills that are bipartisan, bicameral solutions to keep 
our seniors' access to Medicare. And to add to that an unemployment 
extension that we in the Rules Committee were seeing for the very first 
time, I don't know what the committees of jurisdiction were doing. I 
certainly was one of those ``no'' votes last night, Mr. Speaker. I 
don't think that is the appropriate place to do that.
  But I will say to my colleagues again today, as I said to them last 
night, I am so pleased that this rule contains that same-day authority, 
Mr. Speaker, that I mentioned earlier. Because if my colleagues, who I 
know have deeply heartfelt opinions about this issue, as do I, if that 
bipartisan, bicameral agreement can be found, this House has the 
opportunity, if we pass this rule today--and only if we pass this rule 
today--we will have the opportunity to bring such a package up.

  I hope we can find that agreement. But at the moment, Mr. Speaker, I 
hope we can pass this rule so that if such an agreement is found, we 
will have the authority on the floor of the House to bring that 
agreement immediately to the floor for consideration.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Committee 
on Rules.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the ranking member for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me, first of all, begin by congratulating 
Congressman Ryan, Congressman Van Hollen, and Senator Murray for coming 
together and trying to work out a bipartisan budget deal. It is far 
from what I would deem as perfect, but it begins to chip away at this 
awful sequestration that my Republican friends seem to be so enamored 
of.
  But I want to come here on the floor to echo what the ranking member 
said in terms of expressing outrage over the fact that my Republican 
friends want to leave town without addressing the issue of extending 
unemployment compensation for 1.3 million Americans.
  They are going to leave town tomorrow; and on December 28, after they 
have opened up all their presents and wished everybody a merry 
Christmas and had a wonderful dinner, on December 28, 1.3 million of 
our fellow citizens will be cut off totally from their unemployment 
compensation.
  I want to put this in perspective.
  On November 1, the American Recovery Act funds ran out, in terms of 
supporting the SNAP program, which means that everybody on SNAP has 
received a cut. So the average family of three, Mr. Speaker, received a 
$30 reduction in their SNAP benefits. That is their food benefit. That 
is about 16 meals.
  It may not sound like a big deal to some of my friends on the other 
side of the aisle; but for millions of family in this country who are 
struggling just to put food on the table, it is a big deal.
  On top of that, they are going to say to these 1.3 million people and 
their families, We don't care. We don't care. We are leaving town.
  And since when did my Republican friends have to wait for a 
bicameral, bipartisan deal on anything to bring this to the floor? They 
brought a repeal of the Affordable Care Act to the floor about four 
dozen times.
  Since when do they wait to get a backroom deal with the Senate before 
we are allowed to vote on something on the House floor? That is an 
excuse, and it is a poor excuse.
  We ought to be doing the people's business, and that means not 
turning our backs on millions of Americans who are struggling during 
this difficult economy. We ought not to be making excuses. We ought to 
do something, and this is an opportunity to do it.
  Defeat the previous question, as the ranking member said, and we can 
have a vote on extending unemployment compensation for these 1.3 
million people. And it is paid for.
  If you don't want to do it, you can vote ``no.'' But for those of us 
in this Chamber who believe we have a moral obligation to those people, 
we want that vote. And let us vote for the extension and then send it 
over to the Senate.
  Let's take some leadership on this issue. Let's not turn our backs on 
the most vulnerable in this country. It has become unfashionable in 
this country to worry about the poor. It has become unfashionable to 
stand up for these programs just to help people get by. This is the 
holiday season. Have a heart.
  We ought to do something here. We ought to help these people and not 
just skip town. So there are no excuses.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' on the 
previous question. Let us vote on extending unemployment compensation, 
and let us do the right thing. Let's not make excuses.
  Mr. WOODALL. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am glad that our bipartisan, bicameral spirit lasted 
for the first 5 minutes of the debate. It was going to be too much to 
ask that it lasted much longer. I regret that.
  But I will say to you, Mr. Speaker, if you want to know why problems 
are so hard to solve in this town, when the folks who have such a 
heartfelt commitment to solving the problems begin the presentation 
with ``and we could do this, except for those heartless Republicans,'' 
it is easy to see why disagreement prevails and agreement is hard to 
find.
  I will say to my friend that I appreciate his recognition of the 
tireless effort we have put in on this side of the aisle to repeal the 
President's health care bill, which is denying not only the choice of 
plans to my constituents; it is restricting their choice of doctors as 
well.
  But the issue that he brings up is an important issue, Mr. Speaker, 
and I hope that we will have more success on his issue than we have had 
the 40 times trying to repeal the President's health care bill.
  If what he wants is a symbolic vote on this issue, more power to him, 
but I don't believe that is what he wants. I think he cares deeply 
about challenges that folks have in this country and he cares deeply 
about solving those problems.
  I will say to you, Mr. Speaker, as I have said to all of my 
colleagues, we can do these things together. This is not a case of 
first impression. The gentleman knows that. We have come together in a 
bipartisan way to extend unemployment benefits.
  Just to be clear, because we spend a lot of time in this Chamber, Mr. 
Speaker, creating fear out there, I think that is one of the most 
shameful things that we are a part of, Mr. Speaker: creating fear for 
families that needn't have that fear.

                              {time}  1300

  For families that are concerned, we are talking about the emergency 
extended unemployment benefits. Those basic unemployment benefits that 
your State has guaranteed to you, nothing is happening to those, and 
folks need to know that. Those weeks of unemployment that the Federal 
Government has always provided, nothing is happening to those, and 
folks need to know that. What we are talking about are those emergency 
benefits.
  Now, what we have done in this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, is to have come 
together not once, not twice, not three times, not four times--but 
more--to do this together, and we can do this together; but I promise 
you, Mr. Speaker, that we are only going to do it in working together. 
If the answer is that someone has got a heart and the other folks don't 
have a heart, we are not going to be able to solve the issue.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOODALL. I would be happy to yield to my friend from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I guess my question to the gentleman is that, on 
December

[[Page H7706]]

28--I think it is indisputable--1.3 million people will lose their 
benefits. They have also had their SNAP benefits cut. What do these 
people do on December 28? What do they do? Where do they go?
  Mr. WOODALL. In reclaiming my time, I would say to my friend, who has 
incredible expertise on this issue, that, instead of being on this 
floor, impugning our committee's process or impugning my heart, the 
gentleman could be hard at work in creating a bipartisan, bicameral 
solution, because the gentleman knows, Mr. Speaker, that anything short 
of a bipartisan, bicameral solution is showboating for those folks who 
are hurting and is not doing a dadgum thing to help them. We don't need 
showboating in this institution, Mr. Speaker--we need results--which 
brings me back to the bipartisan, bicameral solutions that this rule 
has made in order.
  It wasn't easy, Mr. Speaker, but we came together on a budget for the 
first time not in 1 year, not in 2 years, not in 3 years--but more. It 
is important because we have come together on a pathway to a farm bill 
not in 1 year, not in 2 years, not in 3 years--but in more--and we have 
come together on a process to solve an SGR that has plagued us not for 
1 year, not for 2 years, not for 3 years--but for more.
  This is not a day for acrimony, Mr. Speaker. There is not a person in 
this Chamber who is getting everything he wants today. I promise you I 
am not. I promise you my constituents are not. This is a day for doing 
what can be done, and what we are doing today makes a difference.
  I ask my colleagues to look at not just what we are doing today but 
at how it is we came together to do it, because that is the framework, 
Mr. Speaker, by which we will accomplish the rest of these goals that I 
know my colleagues on both sides of the aisle share.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the distinguished ranking member 
of the Committee on Ways and Means, to discuss our previous question 
amendment, which will allow every one of us to vote ``yes'' or ``no'' 
on whether we are going to allow 1.3 million Americans to keep their 
unemployment benefits for 3 months, which is absolutely paid for and 
which does not add a nickel to the deficit.
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I am glad we are talking about unemployment 
insurance.
  We are not showboating--we want to vote--and you misunderstand, if I 
might say so, the issue.
  If we don't act on December 28, 1.3 million people will lose every 
cent of unemployment insurance. These are people who have exhausted 
their State benefits. They have exhausted them. These are people who 
have been laid off through no fault of their own, and they are looking 
for work. When Walmart came to D.C. and asked for applications, 23,000 
people applied for 600 jobs. That is the shortage of jobs for people. 
So these 1.3 million people are people who have exhausted their State 
benefits and who are long-term unemployed.
  Historically, we have never, never ended these emergency provisions 
when long-term unemployment has been as high as it is today--37 
percent--and we have already reduced the average number of unemployment 
insurance weeks in this country to 54. I want to point out to the 
gentleman and to everybody else that, if we don't act, another 1.9 
million unemployed people will lose every cent of their unemployment 
insurance in the next 6 months.
  So, under this bill, SGR is now extended for 3 months. We asked the 
Rules Committee to make in order an amendment--paid for--to extend 
unemployment insurance for 3 months, and here is what we said: if we 
can prevent a 25 percent cut to doctors' pay, surely, we can prevent a 
100 percent cut for 1.3 million uninsured.
  So what has been the response?
  The answer from House Republicans is this--an empty box.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am sorry, Mr. Levin. All time has been allocated.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my great pleasure to 
yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Tom Cole, a member 
of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. COLE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying 
legislation, the bipartisan Budget Act of 2013.
  I had the privilege of sitting as one of the budget conferees, and it 
was an interesting process but a productive one. This is the first time 
in a long time we have had a genuine compromise in this body and, 
frankly, between this body and the administration and between this body 
and the other Chamber.
  I particularly want to praise Chairman Ryan and Chairman Murray, who 
worked together in good faith and who worked together well, neither one 
of whom violated their core principles but both of whom came together 
and did some pretty extraordinary things in what is a modest bill.
  First of all, they actually added to the deficit reduction over the 
window. Literally, we will have a somewhat smaller deficit and debt 
because of what they did than if we keep the current situation.
  Secondly, they did something we all know needs to be done in that 
they dealt a little bit with mandatory spending, and they redistributed 
those savings over to the discretionary side of the budget. It was 
because they were able to do that that we are probably going to be able 
to protect our military from what would have been really devastating 
cuts under the sequester. That is a pretty amazing achievement.
  The achievement, to me, that is the most impressive of all is that 
they managed to find a compromise that will restore regular order. We 
all know, if this legislation passes, the appropriators from the Senate 
and the appropriators from the House will be working over the holidays. 
They will probably come back and have an omnibus or some series of 
minibuses, but we will actually have had a somewhat normal 
appropriations process. Even more importantly, because they have set a 
top line number for fiscal year 2015, we can have regular order work in 
this Chamber all year next year, and we will be spared the prospect of 
a government shutdown in January or again in October.
  Those are exceptional achievements. I wish there would have been more 
and would have been different. I know I would have written it 
differently. I know my friend would have, and I know my friends on the 
other side would have; but we ought to take a step back and thank 
Chairman Ryan and thank Chairman Murray for what they did to restore 
the institution as much as what they did to try and work on the budget. 
They did it the right way. They did it together, and it is an example 
we ought to follow.
  So I urge the passage of this rule and the support and passage of the 
underlying legislation.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), the distinguished ranking 
member of the Committee on the Budget, and I congratulate him for his 
hard work.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my friend, Ms. Slaughter.
  Mr. Speaker, I do believe that the budget agreement that was reached 
was a small but positive step forward, and I plan to talk about that a 
little later today; but what I want to talk about right now is the 
abuse of process that has taken place in the last 8 hours and the 
changing of the terms of that agreement.
  During that agreement, the Democrats from the House and others put 
forward a proposal that said, as we deal with the budget issues, we 
should also deal with what we call the doc fix, making sure that 
doctors are fully reimbursed to help Medicare patients, but that we 
should also help folks who are about to lose their unemployment 
compensation. That is what we said, and we put it on paper and offered 
it. We said, if we do a doc fix for 3 months, we should do a UI 
extension for 3 months, and if we do a doc fix for a year, we should 
deal with the UI issue for a year; but that was not part of the budget 
negotiation even though we wanted it to be.

[[Page H7707]]

  Chairman Ryan acknowledged that yesterday as did Senator Murray. They 
said we wouldn't deal with either of those two issues--the doc fix or 
the UI--as part of the budget agreement but that we would deal with 
them outside of that agreement. Yet the ink was barely dry, Mr. 
Speaker, on that agreement before the House Republicans and the Speaker 
of the House put forward a rule that injected the doc fix, which we 
support, into the budget agreement, so it is all going to be one whole 
thing.
  They did that to take care of a real issue of the doc fix, but what 
did they leave out?
  They left out an extension of unemployment insurance for 1.3 million 
Americans who are going to lose that important support 3 days after 
Christmas. They left that out of that last-minute procedure.
  Now, as Mr. Levin said, he and I went to the Rules Committee last 
night and said, All right. If we are going to fix the SGR issue, let's 
deal with the unemployment compensation issue, and we presented an 
amendment. I have it in my hand--3 months. We said we would pay for it, 
and we paid for it, Mr. Woodall, in a way that has been agreed to on a 
bipartisan basis, which is in the ag bill negotiations, in the farm 
bill negotiations. We have already agreed on a bipartisan and on a 
bicameral basis to get rid of these excessive direct payments--
subsidies--that go to agribusiness. We had agreed on that already. As 
of now, we have agreed on it. Let's use $6 billion of that savings to 
make sure that 1.3 million Americans aren't left out in the cold.
  So I would say to my friend Mr. Woodall: If you want to make this a 
bipartisan agreement, all you have to do is vote for it; and if you 
want to vote for it, you have got to give this House an opportunity to 
vote for it. Yet, while we are going to get a chance to vote on the doc 
fix and on the budget agreement, the Rules Committee and the Speaker of 
the House have told the American people you won't allow a vote to help 
1.3 million Americans who are going to be left out in the cold. It is 
not just them and their struggling families, but the Congressional 
Budget Office that tells us that their surrounding communities are 
going to be hurt, too.
  Why?
  They won't be able to make the rent payments. They won't be able to 
go out to the local stores around Christmastime and the holiday season 
to buy gifts. That hurts local merchants, small businesses. In fact, 
the Congressional Budget Office tells us that we will have 200,000 
fewer of those jobs--private sector jobs--as a result of not extending 
unemployment insurance.
  So, Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely unconscionable and shameful, after 
we have reached an agreement in which we had wanted to include a fixed 
SGR and UI in the agreement but it was decided not to, that we would 
have this last-minute thing parachuted on and would leave the 1.3 
million Americans out in the cold. That is shameful. You should allow a 
vote, and if you vote against the previous question, we will have a 
chance to do our job and vote on that.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to say that I think the gentleman characterized much of that exactly 
right, and his characterization of all we have to do to make his idea a 
bipartisan idea is to agree to do it his way--that is all we have to 
do--and that is not the way we reach agreements in this institution.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Will the gentleman yield on that?
  Mr. WOODALL. In just one moment, I would be happy to yield to my 
friend from Maryland.
  We have here on the floor, Mr. Speaker, a rule, again, to bring 
bipartisan, bicameral agreements on the budget, bipartisan, bicameral 
agreements on Medicare, bipartisan, bicameral agreements on the farm 
bill; and we have two of the finest minds in this institution with two 
of the biggest hearts in this institution, who want to do the right 
thing for the American people, who are using this as their opportunity 
to try to get that done. I can promise my friends, Mr. Speaker, that we 
are not going to solve that problem here in the 1 hour of debate on 
this entirely separate measure.

                              {time}  1315

  What the gentleman characterized as the agreement within the Budget 
Committee is we weren't going to be able to find an answer to SGR 
within the budget conference and we didn't. We found it outside of the 
conference. We didn't find an answer to my issues with Medicare in the 
conference. We didn't find the answers to saving Social Security in the 
conference. So many things I wanted we didn't find in the conference.
  The commitment that was made was to deal with UI outside of the 
conference. I don't sit on any of the relevant committees for UI, but I 
take folks at their word that that is something we can solve outside of 
conference. We are not going to solve it here. Knowing that folks need 
that help, it is a great frustration to me, Mr. Speaker, that some of 
the finest minds in this Congress are focusing their energy on this 
hour while we are trying to move things forward that we do agree on 
instead of focusing their energy trying to find that agreement on 
things we do not yet agree on but we could agree on if folks would 
focus their energies in that direction.
  I will be happy to yield to my friend from Maryland.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my friend, Mr. Woodall, for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just point out--and I think the gentleman knows 
this--we have not seen a single proposal from our Republican colleagues 
to extend unemployment insurance because there is a philosophical 
difference and a majority of the Republican colleagues don't think we 
should extend unemployment compensation for 1.3 million Americans. We 
have not seen a proposal. We paid for this proposal in a way that has 
bipartisan support.
  I will just say the question is whether we should be able to vote on 
it. My colleague and friends can vote against it, but I think the 
American people deserve a vote on this.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would say to my 
friend that I wouldn't want anyone to be confused who is listening to 
this debate that we can't find agreement on this in a bipartisan way.
  Why would folks come to that conclusion? Well, much has been said 
here on the floor; but the facts are that time and time and time again 
these provisions have been extended and they were not extended January 
2013, February 2012. All the way back to the beginning they were not 
extended on party-line votes alone. They were extended in a bipartisan, 
bicameral way.
  Mr. LEVIN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOODALL. In just one moment, I will be happy to yield to my 
friend.
  Folks back home are so frustrated, Mr. Speaker. They know that we can 
argue with each other. They are absolutely convinced we can do that. We 
do that every single day.
  Today, we have an opportunity on this rule to move forward those 
things that we have not found an easy agreement on, but things we have 
struggled to find agreement on for, again, not days, not weeks, in most 
cases months, in many cases years, and we have finally found that 
agreement.
  I do not believe, Mr. Speaker, it advances any of our causes to turn 
what should be an hour on those things that we are doing well together 
into any kind of an hour on accusations that somebody is right and 
somebody is wrong and only if we do it one way can we find the answers.
  I will be happy to yield 30 seconds to my friend.
  Mr. LEVIN. I appreciate your courtesy.
  I always enjoy coming before the Rules Committee.
  Just two points. First of all--maybe three quick ones--SGR was 
outside the budget agreement. It was decided to place it within it. All 
we are asking is for a vote on UI. And the third point, December 28 is 
a few days away. The ax falls on the livelihood of 1.3 million people.
  So if you will say today that the Speaker will sit down with us on a 
bipartisan basis today and tomorrow and find an answer, fine. But just 
to say you are skipping town not addressing this and leaving an empty 
box, that is not a good answer.
  Mr. WOODALL. Well, I would say to my friend suggesting anyone is 
skipping town is also not a good answer.
  Mr. LEVIN. It is true, isn't it? We are leaving?

[[Page H7708]]

  Mr. WOODALL. The gentleman knows, and it is so frustrating, Mr. 
Speaker, because, again, much, much to the surprise of the odds makers 
all across this country, we have got three provisions before us today 
on which Republicans and Democrats on the House side and the Senate 
side, with the support of the White House, have been able to come 
together on.
  If we want to go down the road of moving things on which we don't 
have agreement, the gentleman knows those things don't move. If you 
want to make a difference for people, I say stop the recriminations and 
begin the conversations. That is the only way we have been able to find 
these, Mr. Speaker.
  I say to my folks back home, Mr. Speaker, it is not the happiest day 
in the life of their Seventh District Congressman that we have these 
bills on the floor today. I would do something different in every 
single one of them--every single one. I would do a lot of things 
different in every single one.
  While I appreciate the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Speaker, 
perhaps one day if I am Speaker of the House I will have the power to 
do those things by myself. I think if you ask the Speaker, he will say 
he does not have the power to do things alone. It takes herding 434 
other cats to make that happen.
  But we have successes here today, hard-fought successes on behalf of 
the American people. Not frivolous things, but things that are going to 
make a difference in people's lives.
  My colleague from New York mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, medical 
research. I am a huge believer in medical research, a huge believer in 
NIH. CDC is stationed in my great home State of Georgia. We have an 
opportunity with this budget agreement to restore some funding to those 
two agencies that do amazing work on behalf of all Americans, in fact, 
in the case of the CDC, on behalf of the world.
  We should take advantage of these successes, Mr. Speaker, and then we 
should show up again--maybe it is not even tomorrow; maybe it is the 
very next hour--and build on these successes to do more. We have got 
that framework now. We know what it takes to come together and do 
things that matter to the American people, do things that make a 
difference for this land that we both love. We have that opportunity 
today.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Will the gentleman yield for 30 seconds on that?
  Mr. WOODALL. I would say to my friend that we are very lopsided on 
time. If the gentlelady runs out later in the hour, I will be happy to 
yield to my friend.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Van Hollen). This is very important.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my friend, Ms. Slaughter.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is right. As I said at the outset of my 
comments, I support the bipartisan agreement. I think it is a small 
step forward. But the gentleman knows we will be debating that issue 
later this afternoon.
  Right now we are debating the rule of the House. That rule parachuted 
in a doc-fix for 3 months, which we support, but our Republican 
colleagues denied this House and the American people an opportunity to 
vote to extend UI in that rule. That is what we are debating right now, 
Mr. Woodall, and you know that.
  The way that rule was structured was to deny the people of this 
country a vote to help 1.3 million Americans, and that is shameful.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Ms. Velazquez), my colleague, who is the ranking member of 
the Committee on Small Business.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I want to thank the gentlelady from New York for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, in 16 days, 1.3 million Americans will lose their 
unemployment benefits they have relied on to buy groceries and keep a 
roof over their heads; and, no, we are not creating fear. This is the 
reality for 1.3 million Americans who every day get up and go out to 
the job market to find out that there are no jobs available. This is 
the reality of American children who are suffering. This is the reality 
of 1.3 million individuals in this country who will not know how they 
can pay for the next meal or how can they pay for their rent.
  This is not the American way. We took care of the doctors; we took 
care of big farmers at a time when the economy is still struggling in 
the wake of the 2008 financial collapse. We should not be revoking 
needed economic assistance from jobseekers while millions of Americans 
are fighting to get back to work.
  Last year, unemployment insurance kept 2.5 million Americans and .6 
million children out of poverty. If long-term jobless benefits are 
allowed to expire, next year there will be nothing to protect these 
families from long spells of unemployment.
  Unfortunately, this budget fails to extend the unemployment insurance 
millions of Americans rely on to make ends meet. Allowing jobless 
benefits to expire will not put people back to work. It will just make 
it harder for families to pay the bills and discourage people from 
seeking employment.
  I urge my colleagues to continue fighting for struggling Americans, 
and I hope that Americans are paying close attention to what is 
happening in Congress today.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to remind my 
colleagues about the successes that we have had when we worked together 
and about the terrible, terrible failures that we have had when we 
decide fussing with each other is better than seeking long-term 
solutions.
  One issue at a time we can absolutely make a difference, Mr. Speaker. 
I am glad that my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle have 
not come down to express all of their disappointments about everything 
that wasn't included. I hope that we will be able to use this time to 
celebrate our successes on those things that were included and again 
rise tomorrow to solve the rest.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democrat leader, on this 
important issue.
  Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentlelady from New York for yielding, our 
ranking member on the Rules Committee, and thank her and our colleagues 
on that committee for trying so hard to have this rule contain an 
amendment that will allow us to vote on the extension of unemployment 
insurance for over 1.3 million Americans who will lose those benefits 
if we do not pass that extension. I would particularly salute 
Congressman Sandy Levin of Michigan, the ranking member on the Ways and 
Means Committee, for his relentless championing of this issue of 
fairness to the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, we come here to talk about a bill that is to end the 
sequester, and end the sequester it does. I commend the conferees. I am 
very proud of the work of Congressman Chris Van Hollen, the ranking 
member on the Budget Committee on the Democratic side; Nita Lowey, the 
ranking member on Appropriations; and our assistant leader, Mr. 
Clyburn, representing the leadership in those negotiations. I thank 
them for taking this to a place, fighting it to a draw, so that we come 
to the floor to fight some and end sequestration.
  But the opportunity was so much greater. Apparently, the Republicans 
never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity when it comes to 
creating jobs. Mr. Van Hollen had in his bill just a few points in 
terms of priorities. One was to create jobs and economic growth for our 
country in the short term and in the long term.
  If we close a loophole, build the infrastructure of America; close a 
loophole, build a bridge; close a loophole, special interests, tax 
loopholes for special interests, invest in the human infrastructure of 
our country, early childhood education, long-term economic growth; 
close a loophole, pay for unemployment insurance. I don't think it has 
to be paid for because it is emergency spending; but, nonetheless, 
let's have an opportunity to vote to extend unemployment benefits.
  When we do ignore those investments in the future, we are not 
reducing the deficit; we are increasing the deficit. Nothing brings 
more money to the Treasury than creating jobs and the revenue that 
produces. Nothing brings more money to the Treasury than the education 
of the American people starting with early childhood education.

[[Page H7709]]

  As far as unemployment benefits are concerned, the economic impact is 
clear: every dollar spent on unemployment benefits grows the economy by 
$1.52, according to Moody's Analytics--a dollar and a half for every 
dollar we spent, and that is a conservative estimate.
  Failing to extend unemployment benefits will cost us 200,000 jobs 
over the next year. We can't do that. A recent report shows that 
extending UI instead would produce 300,000 jobs.
  So again, this money, if spent immediately, injects demand into the 
economy, creates jobs, grows the economy, as well as honoring our 
social compact that we have with the American people.

                              {time}  1330

  People work hard, play by the rules, and lose their job through no 
fault of their own; insurance is what they have. We should honor that 
insurance.
  So it is disappointing, yes, because this package is so limited. But 
as I said, it was a fight to a draw, and I recommend that our 
colleagues vote to support it so we can take it off the table and make 
way for the discussion we should be having about comprehensive 
immigration reform. The votes are here. Give us a vote, Mr. Speaker.
  Passing a farm bill, that is very important to the economy of our 
country.
  Raise the minimum wage. Nearly two-thirds of the people making the 
minimum wage are women. Paycheck equity, have fairness in the workplace 
for women.
  The list goes on and on. ENDA, ending discrimination against the LGBT 
community, people in the workplace. There are so many items on the 
agenda that have the support of the American people in large numbers.
  Yesterday was the anniversary of Newtown. Pass the Brady background 
bill. All of these things are on an agenda we have neglected. Up until 
now we just haven't had time for it. I guess they haven't been 
priorities for this Congress, but they are priorities for the American 
people and for the Democrats in Congress.
  So again, one reason to vote for this package, even though you may 
think it is meager and you may not like all of its priorities, as the 
gentleman said, is to at least have an agreement on the budget that 
enables us to move forward for bigger fights that will improve policy 
and improve the lives of the American people and honor our 
responsibilities to them.
  I urge our colleagues to vote for the budget, but to vote against 
this rule because this rule says ``no.'' It says ``no'' to the 
Congress; we are not even going to allow you to speak or vote on 
unemployment insurance benefits extension. It says ``no'' to the 
American people that if you work hard and play by the rules and lose 
your job through no fault of your own, the safety net is not there. And 
that safety net is not there just for individuals; it is there for the 
system. Our beautiful free market system grows in cycles, and sometimes 
unemployment is higher than others and there are some outside forces at 
work that people lose their jobs because of. And so it is a safety net 
for our economic system as well as individuals.
  Why would they not allow us to bring this up and extend the 
extension? Is it the money? If it is the money, we will find it. Is it 
the price? Do you think the price is to high to give people dignity, to 
allow them to keep their homes and meet the needs of their children? 
Two million children would be affected by this. Tens of thousands of 
veterans will be affected by this. We care about veterans here. We care 
about children here, but apparently not enough to extend unemployment 
benefits.
  So why, my Republican colleagues, would you not allow us to have a 
vote on this? I know the support is there on the Republican side. I 
know that the Democrats would vote 100 percent for this. Do you not 
believe that these people are worthy of receiving unemployment 
insurance? I say ``insurance,'' that is something paid into, a benefit 
check. If so, let the American people know that.
  But this debate will not end today. While you may not give us a vote 
on the floor to extend these benefits so we see where everybody is on 
the subject and why, this fight will continue because this is about the 
morality of our country, the respect that we have for people, the value 
that we place on work, the pride we take in the great work ethic of the 
American people. But sometimes it just seems the harder they work, the 
forces are in a deck stacked against them, and this Congress is saying 
this deck is not going to include you as we deal out the cards.
  So I can't explain it to anybody except to say it is a values 
decision; and, apparently, there is not enough shared value on the 
subject of the respect we should have for our workers to even honor the 
subject with a vote on the floor of the House. It is an outrageous rule 
to come to the floor. I thank you, Madam Chair, for fighting it, and I 
urge a very strong ``no'' vote on the rule. Vote ``no'' on the previous 
question, which would allow us to bring the issue to the floor.
  What are you afraid of? Are you afraid of the vote? Are you afraid of 
working people who are out of a job? What are you afraid of? Let us 
have a vote on the floor.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and a 
``yes'' on the bill.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to go back to the place I was earlier, and that is how one of the worst 
things we do in this institution is create fears in the minds of the 
American people.
  The gentlelady from California has a powerful voice. She is listened 
to, admired, and respected across this great land; and it has to be 
said, I was just in a hearing, Mr. Speaker, in the Oversight Committee 
where we were hearing from doctors who were talking about all the fears 
their patients had that they were going to lose access to their doctor 
and lose access to their pharmaceuticals because of ObamaCare. Now, 
those fears have been realized. That is exactly what happened to those 
patients.
  But these fears are not realized. I want to make clear to everybody 
back home because I talk to constituents every day who are losing their 
jobs in response to what their employers are doing to be able to afford 
the ObamaCare mandates. They are losing their jobs, Mr. Speaker, and 
absolutely every week of State unemployment that has always been 
available to them will continue to be available to them. Fear not from 
what you are hearing from the other side of the aisle.
  Mr. Speaker, for those folks who are losing their jobs in my district 
as their employers are trying to comply with those mandates, understand 
that every week that you paid your insurance premium for unemployment 
insurance, all of those Federal weeks that have been there not for a 
year, not for 5 years, but for a decade, those will still be there for 
you. Fear not, that is still there.
  What we are talking about here today, Mr. Speaker, are benefits in 
the emergency unemployment category, benefits that folks have not paid 
the insurance premiums for, benefits that are absolutely being utilized 
by families across this country. I don't minimize the impact of those 
going away. I don't minimize the impact; but I reject, Mr. Speaker, the 
fear creation that coming to the floor of the House and saying 
unemployment benefits are going away tomorrow is going to create in my 
district. Folks are losing their jobs today. Why, because after we do 
job creation bill after job creation bill after job creation bill, I 
can't find a bipartisan, bicameral agreement on those. I'm going to 
keep looking, but I haven't found it yet.
  My message, Mr. Speaker, is if you are losing your job today because 
of the heavy foot--and I won't yield because I am running low on time. 
I know my friend has much time remaining. If you are one of those folks 
in my district or others who are losing your job because the heavy hand 
of government is on your employer, those unemployment benefits on which 
you are counting to apply tomorrow will be there.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I have to yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Woodall, if you believe anything at all that you have just said, 
I understand what is going on here.
  First, blame everything in the world on ObamaCare.
  Mr. WOODALL. Will the gentlelady yield?

[[Page H7710]]

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I will not.
  To try to give people health insurance is somehow a crime in the 
House of Representatives, but the people we are talking about on 
unemployment have exhausted their unemployment. It will not be there, 
Mr. Woodall. They can lose their housing. They can lose their food. 
They may even be dispossessed out into the street. There is a meanness 
that is going on that is absolutely astonishing to me.
  Mr. WOODALL. I am sure that the gentlelady does not mean to suggest 
that there is meanness going on, I would ask the gentlelady.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. May I please have my time. I didn't get to speak 
because he took it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  The Chair would remind all Members to direct their remarks to the 
Chair.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I would like to, Mr. Speaker, and I started out that 
way.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), the 
Energy and Commerce Environment Subcommittee ranking member, who I hope 
can finish my thought.
  Mr. TONKO. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. And absolutely, those 
benefits have been exhausted, and I think that needs to be very clear 
here.
  Mr. Speaker, while this budget compromise is not perfect, I would 
like to highlight a provision that will reduce our deficit.
  Since 2011, I have fought to change a little-known statutory formula 
for capping the maximum reimbursement for Federal contractor executives 
and employees. Due to a flaw in this formula, taxpayer-funded salaries 
have spiraled out of control in recent years.
  Just this month, OMB announced that it was required to raise the cap 
to over $950,000 per year--$950,000--while we debate our ability to 
afford essential services for our most vulnerable citizens, for 
extending unemployment insurance. We are paying private sector 
executives nearly million-dollar salaries. This agreement sets the cap 
at $487,000. Personally, I would have preferred the cap to be set at 
$230,700--the Vice President's salary--as it is stated in my 
legislation, but this is an important step and sensible compromise to 
restoring sanity to taxpayer-funded salaries.
  Just a sampling, GAO, within the Department of Defense, found just 7 
percent of their contracts when reduced to this level would save 
hundreds of millions of dollars.
  I again thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia has 4\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from New York has 10 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee), a member of the Committee on the Budget and 
author of the amendment we are trying to get here.
  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for 
yielding and for her tremendous leadership in her capacity as our 
ranking member on the Rules Committee. Thank you so much for standing 
in strong opposition to this rule.
  As a member of the Budget Committee and Appropriations Committee, I 
want to commend all of my colleagues for putting forth a plan to 
replace some of the reckless sequester cuts that do continue to hurt 
families each and every day.
  Yet this budget deal is really outrageous for what it doesn't do. It 
does nothing--nothing--to extend emergency unemployment benefits to the 
millions of jobless workers in every State.
  As the Center on Budget and Priorities report today points out, the 
failure to include any extension of Federal emergency jobless benefits 
in the deal would likely negate any boost from sequester this deal 
would bring, and I will include this report for the Record.
  Over 170 Democrats have joined my letter calling for an extension of 
this critical lifeline. It is really shameful that Republicans have 
refused to include an extension of unemployment benefits. The least we 
can do for the millions of the long-term unemployed who are struggling 
just to get by during this holiday season is to pass this 3-month 
extension. This budget does nothing for the millions of jobless people 
and asks nothing from the people who caused our economic crisis and 
continue to benefit from economic inequality.
  Please remember, this is not about showboating or statistics. We are 
talking about people's lives. We are talking about people living on the 
edge. We are talking about 1.3 million people who will lose 
unemployment benefits during this holiday season. It is cruel. It is 
morally wrong, and it is economically stupid.
  So I hope that we can vote ``no'' on this rule and defeat the 
previous question so we can vote for a 3-month extension of 
unemployment compensation.
  Finally, let me just say, we must do better. We must protect and 
expand the safety net that are the pillars of our society.

               [From offthechartsblog.org, Dec. 11, 2013]

Failure To Continue Jobless Benefits Would Undo Budget Deal's Economic 
                                 Boost

                            (By Chad Stone)

       The Murray-Ryan budget deal provides a stimulative boost to 
     the economy--albeit a modest one. But here's the rub: the 
     economic drag caused by lawmakers' failure to include an 
     extension of federal emergency jobless benefits in the deal 
     would likely negate that stimulus.
       Economist Joel Prakken of Macroeconomic Advisers says that 
     the deal would boost economic growth by ``maybe 1/4 
     percentage point'' compared to the sequestration cuts 
     scheduled under current law. The deal follows the sound 
     principle under current circumstances of raising deficits in 
     the near term to boost the economic recovery but reducing 
     them by an even larger amount later, when the economy is 
     expected to be stronger.
       The problem is, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) 
     estimates that Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) has 
     a very similar impact--boosting the economy by up to 0.3 
     percent by the end of 2014 and adding up to 300,000 jobs. Not 
     extending EUC would remove that potential boost from the 
     economy.
       The budget deal and extending EUC have similar economic 
     effects because their budgetary effects are roughly the same 
     size: CBO estimates that the budget deal's increases in 
     discretionary spending would raise federal spending by $26 
     billion in fiscal year 2014 and $22 billion in fiscal year 
     2015, while its deficit-reduction provisions would cut 
     spending by roughly $3 billion in each fiscal year. Netting 
     these effects and assuming that about a quarter of spending 
     for fiscal year 2015 (which starts October 1, 2014) occurs in 
     calendar year 2014, the budget deal would produce a net 
     increase in spending of about $28 billion by the end of 
     calendar year 2014. CBO estimates that extending EUC would 
     cost about $26 billion in calendar year 2014.
       CBO and other analysts generally regard spending on 
     unemployment insurance as providing more ``bang for the 
     buck'' than most other stimulus measures. So, the economic 
     drag in 2014 from a failure to extend EUC is likely to be at 
     least as large as the economic boost from the budget deal.

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 
minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. You know, it is very good that we have a deal. The 
American people are frustrated and tired. Our offices are being 
bombarded by calls from people from all political perspectives that 
they are glad for the deal; and to be honest with you, I am glad that 
we have made some progress. Many of us want to be part of the deal.
  But I know that it is equally important to raise the concern of faces 
like this, faces across America who equal the 1.3 million number of 
Americans who will lose their unemployment benefits; 3.5 million in 
2014; 200,000 military veterans and 2 million children. And so we can't 
only be about ourselves in this holiday season, particularly as we 
recognize that the Pope, being named Man of the Year, has spoken to the 
world eloquently about this whole issue of the vulnerable.
  And so I ask this, Mr. Woodall and the Rules Committee: let's put the 
Van Hollen-Lee-Levin amendment to the floor tonight. Call us back, Mr. 
Boehner. Let us vote to provide for unemployment insurance for working 
men and women. Faces across America will not have the tears of 
desperation. The deal is good, but the people are suffering. We cannot 
allow this to happen in this season of joy and giving.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the rule and the underlying bill, 
H.J. Res. 59, the ``Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 and Pathway for 
Sustainable Growth in Medicare Reform Act of 2013.''

[[Page H7711]]

  The budget proposal before us is not perfect--far from it--but it is 
a modest and positive step toward preventing Republicans from shutting 
down the government again and manufacturing crises that only harm our 
economy, destroy jobs, and weaken our middle class. Thank goodness for 
small favors.
  As with any compromise there are some things in the agreement that I 
support and some things that I strongly oppose.
  On the positive side:
  Republicans--and the bipartisan deal does not cut Medicare, Social 
Security, or Medicaid benefits by a penny even though our friends 
across the aisle went into the talks insisting on cuts to programs that 
sustain families and seniors.
  Over the Republicans insistence, the agreement replaces almost two-
thirds of the sequester's disastrous impending cuts to important 
domestic investments like education, medical research and law 
enforcement.
  The agreement scales back the proposed cuts to federal employees 
sought by Republicans and exempts current federal employees.
  On the negative side:
  Mr. Speaker, it is outrageous--it is scandalous--that the budget 
agreement does not include an extension of unemployment insurance for 
the 1.3 million jobless workers--68,900 in Texas--will have their 
benefits cut off on December 28, and nearly another 1.9 million--
106,900 Texans--will lose their unemployment benefits over the first 
half of next year.
  If Congress does not act immediately to extend these benefits, a 
devastating blow will be dealt not only to the millions of Americans 
who are already struggling, but to our economy.
  That is why yesterday I joined with 165 of Democratic colleagues in 
calling upon Speaker Boehner not to adjourn this House for the year 
without extending the vital unemployment insurance desperately needed 
by millions of our fellow citizens.
  To let their benefits expire in the middle of the holiday season is 
cruel and heartless and unworthy of a great and generous nation.
  Cutting off unemployment benefits at the end of the year will only 
further hurt an economy already injured by sequestration and the 
Republican government shutdown.
  The Congressional Budget Office estimated that 750,000 fewer jobs 
will be created or retained in calendar year 2013 because of the budget 
cuts under sequestration.
  The government shutdown cost our economy an additional 120,000 jobs 
in the first two weeks of October alone, according to the Council of 
Economic Advisors.
  The Economic Policy Institute estimates that cutting off extended 
unemployment benefits would cost our economy 310,000 jobs next year 
because of reduced consumer demand.
  Other experts, like Michael Feroli, the chief economist at JPMorgan 
Chase, indicate that allowing the federal unemployment insurance (UI) 
program to expire could shave as much 0.4 percentage point off our 
economy's growth in the first quarter of 2014.
  Letting unemployment benefits expire will deprive our economy of the 
positive impact unemployment insurance provides since financially 
stressed unemployed workers spend any benefits they receive quickly.
  CBO also concluded in a 2012 report that assistance for the 
unemployed has one of the ``largest effects on employment per dollar of 
budgetary cost.''
  I agree. Therefore, I urge all Members to join me in voting against 
this rule.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to yield 1 minute 
to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messer).
  Mr. MESSER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for 
yielding me time.
  I rise in support of the bipartisan budget act, the underlying rule, 
and Chairman Ryan's hard work.
  This isn't a perfect deal, but it is better than the alternative. 
This bill replaces some of the indiscriminate spending cuts called for 
by sequestration and replaces it with smarter ones; it makes modest 
reforms that will reduce the deficit without raising taxes; and it 
continues our Nation's trajectory toward a more fiscally responsible 
government.
  I agree with those critics who say this bill doesn't solve all of our 
Nation's budget problems, but ``no'' can't always be the answer. 
Reality is that we have a Democratic President and a Democrat-led 
Senate. Given that reality, this is a solid deal. And virtually 
everyone agrees that we don't need another government shutdown. It is 
time to put politics aside and make genuine progress on ending wasteful 
Washington spending. This is a good first step in that direction.
  Let's not be afraid to take that step and move forward toward common 
ground from which we can continue fighting for fiscal sanity for 
hardworking taxpayers.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis), a member of the Ways 
and Means Committee.
  Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the 
ranking member for yielding.
  I rise in opposition to this rule, and I don't do so because it gives 
us limited opportunity to keep the government open for a few days, and 
I know that we are going to allow our physicians to practice medicine 
so that they can take care of Medicare patients for a few more days. 
What it does not do is it does not extend unemployment insurance for 
those 2 million or more people who will not have it. This is not going 
to be a good Christmas for many of the people in my district. It is 
going to be just the opposite.
  I will vote against the rule so that we can, in fact, come back and 
provide unemployment compensation to those millions who need it.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), a member of the Budget 
Committee.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  The budget deal that we are voting on today is a step in the right 
direction because it blunts some of the painful cuts caused by 
sequestration. But a critical piece is missing: extending unemployment 
benefits that are due to expire at the end of this year.
  It is an absolute disgrace that this body would even consider leaving 
town without finishing our work and ensuring that we address the needs 
of the long-term unemployed. Just 3 days after Christmas, 1.3 million 
Americans struggling to find work will immediately be thrown out into 
the cold and lose their unemployment assistance, including 4,900 Rhode 
Islanders who will lose their benefits on December 28. Much of the 
economic gain achieved in this budget deal will be nearly wiped out by 
failing to extend unemployment insurance.
  Mr. Speaker, how do you plan to explain to your constituents your 3-
week vacation when you have constituents who won't be able to keep the 
heat on or put the next meal on their dinner table because Congress 
failed to do its job?
  We should, every day, but especially during this time of year, be 
thinking of others and taking care of one another, not walking away 
from our responsibilities and ignoring the challenges facing our fellow 
citizens.
  We have 15 days to figure this out. What is the rush to leave town? 
It won't take much time to resolve this problem because we already have 
the answer.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House call up H.R. 3546 
for immediate consideration. This will extend unemployment benefits for 
1.3 million Americans.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Georgia yield for a 
unanimous-consent request?
  Mr. WOODALL. No.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman does not yield.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this 
rule and to stand up and fight for the 1.3 million Americans who will 
lose their benefits on December 28.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from New York for 
yielding.
  I don't see how my colleagues can go home for Christmas leaving their 
constituents who are unemployed with no Christmas at all. I understand 
this bill to be important for its elimination of some sequestration. 
That is a small favor considering that sequestration may be the only 
bill nobody wanted that nevertheless prevailed. But the callous 
treatment of the unemployed is unforgiveable, especially at this 
season. I am really outraged by the notion of some of my colleagues 
about the incentive to remain on unemployment

[[Page H7712]]

insurance, when the benefits per week have gone down one-third across 
the States.
  We are exposing those who have worked and paid into unemployment 
insurance to more hard times, but we are also exposing our economy, 
itself, because the loss of unemployment insurance means another loss 
of 300,000 jobs.
  This bill is counterproductive. It is counterintuitive. It spoils an 
otherwise acceptable bill. It makes a mockery of Christmas.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire if my colleague has further 
speakers? If not, I am prepared to close.
  Mr. WOODALL. I am the final speaker on our side.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Today's proposal is a step in the right direction, but we must 
improve this bill before we vote on final passage.
  What have we learned here today? We have learned first that during 
the budget negotiations that it was determined that the doc fix, as we 
call it--doctors' payments--and unemployment insurance would not be in 
the scope of what they were doing and we would do that separately. 
Then, unbeknownst to us on our side, after agreeing to that, only the 
doc fix, as we call it, was put back into this bill. It was supposed to 
be separate, it was a part of the rule, and it would be voted on 
automatically when we vote for this rule today.
  The only thing left out was unemployment extension, and I think we 
know why. We heard from our colleague that he thinks there is plenty of 
money out there. They are not going to go without a thing. That is 
totally untrue. It would be a tragedy of gigantic proportions if this 
House turned down the extension of unemployment benefits because some 
Members believe it is not going to happen. It is going to happen, and 
it is not because we didn't try in the Rules Committee to try to 
explain it.
  There is no justification in the world for turning down a 3-month 
extension in the dead of winter that is paid for, that adds not a penny 
to anything. And there was no bipartisanship in the Rules Committee on 
this last night. We did our very best, but we were outnumbered 
considerably, 9-4.
  Nonetheless, we think it is important enough today to give every 
Member of this House a second chance, and we are going to ask everybody 
who wants to make sure the people in their districts who are 
unemployed, through no fault of their own--there has been sort of a 
prevailing thought that we have heard from time to time that if we 
don't extend unemployment insurance, we will teach them a lesson; we 
will teach them not to have a job. They will find out right away that 
is not the way to live, despite the fact, as was pointed out, 20,000 
people applied for 600 jobs. That gives you some idea of what that is 
like. Some people have come before committees here with stacks of 
resumes that they have sent out as high as 2 feet with rejection 
notices that they have gotten. They are not there.
  We are going to give another chance on the previous question. I want 
everybody on both sides of the aisle who believes they cannot go home--
and we did have a resolution here not to go home until our work is 
finished--but that we will take care of our fellow Americans in need, 
which we hope is temporary, which again depends very much on what we do 
in the future. We will give you a chance if we vote ``no'' on the 
previous question to this rule. Then I will be allowed to bring up the 
amendment that was turned down last night to extend it for 3 months. 
Imagine, 3 months all paid for again.
  So it is really appalling to me that we can fix anything here, but we 
can literally let children, veterans, people who are unable to work, 
the disabled, and the people who have lost their jobs, that we can say 
to them that it doesn't matter here in the House of Representatives if 
you are hungry, if you are cold, if you are going to lose the place 
that you live, if your sustenance is taken away from you. We don't 
care. Maybe some church somewhere, some temple, some synagogue will 
take care of you.
  If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the 
rule to allow the House to extend unemployment insurance for 1.3 
million Americans.
  I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the 
Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote 
on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and 
vote ``no'' on the previous question.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I am surprised we have spent most of the hour talking about what is 
not in this rule today because we have great cause of celebration for 
what is in this rule today.
  It has not been months; it has been years we have been working to get 
a farm bill. There is an extension that this rule allows to be voted on 
that will bring us in the next 30 days that agreement we have been so 
long searching for.
  Mr. Speaker, it has been since 1997 that the SGR has been a part of 
our lingo here. That is that provision that threatens access to health 
care for every senior in America. This bill today, this rule today 
allows us to have a vote on a bipartisan, bicameral solution to that. 
It is actually a 3-month extension that leads to the end of this 
discussion forever, putting at ease every senior's mind in America that 
around this time of year, every year, their access to care will be 
threatened.
  Perhaps most importantly, Mr. Speaker, this rule allows for a vote on 
the bipartisan, bicameral budget agreement.
  This is not a grand agreement. It is not the grand agreement that I 
have been fighting for on the Budget Committee for the last 3 years, 
but what it is is a small step in the right direction. The reason it is 
a small step in the right direction, Mr. Speaker, is that we take those 
sequester cuts that no one would argue were done in a discriminate 
manner, we preserve those savings, but we apply them in a much more 
discriminate manner. For me, that is national security. The concern has 
always been national security.
  Today, Air Force units have reduced their training activities by 
about 25 percent. With the sequester, only 2 of 43 active brigade 
combat teams are ready or available for deployment in the United States 
Army. We absolutely must rein in Federal spending--this budget 
agreement does that--but we must do so in a responsible way that 
preserves our national security.
  The sequester reductions that were coming up in January, as many of 
my friends know, fell on no program in the land except for our Armed 
Forces, except for our national security. The Constitution does not ask 
much of us in this House, Mr. Speaker--far too often we are doing too 
much here as opposed to not enough--but it asks us to protect and 
preserve our national security. And with this bill today, while it does 
not achieve my Medicare goals, while it does not achieve my Social 
Security goals, while it does not achieve the budget reduction goals I 
would like to see, it does replace an indiscriminate sequester with 
discriminate reductions in mandatory spending programs, putting those 
dollars, instead, towards our national security.
  I will end where I began, Mr. Speaker, with the letter from Thomas 
Jefferson to Charles Clay in 1790:

       The ground of liberty is to be gained by inches, and we 
     must be contented to secure what we can from time to time and 
     eternally press forward for what is yet to get.

  I urge a strong ``yes'' vote on this rule and a ``no'' vote on my 
colleague's motion so that we do those things that we are able to do 
today and then tomorrow eternally press forward.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

    An Amendment to H. Res. 438 Offered by Ms. Slaughter of New York

       In section 1, strike ``to its adoption without intervening 
     motion or demand for division of the question'' and insert 
     ``and on any amendment thereto to its adoption without 
     intervening motion or demand for division of the question 
     except an amendment specified in section 12 of this 
     resolution, if offered by Representative Levin of Michigan or 
     his designee, which shall be in order without intervention of 
     any point of order or demand for

[[Page H7713]]

     division of the question, shall be considered as read, and 
     shall be separately debatable for 30 minutes equally divided 
     and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.''
       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     section:
       Sec. 12. The amendment referenced in the first section of 
     this resolution is as follows:
       Amendment offered by Mr. Levin of Michigan to the motion 
     offered by Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin:
       At the end of division B, add the following:

                    TITLE III--ADDITIONAL EXTENDERS

            Subtitle A--Emergency Unemployment Compensation

     SEC. 1301. SHORT TITLE.

       This subtitle may be cited as the ``Emergency Unemployment 
     Compensation Extension Act of 2013''.

     SEC. 1302. EXTENSION OF EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) Extension.--Section 4007(a)(2) of the Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-252; 26 U.S.C. 3304 
     note) is amended by striking ``January 1, 2014'' and 
     inserting ``April 1, 2014''.
       (b) Funding.--Section 4004(e)(1) of the Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-252; 26 U.S.C. 3304 
     note) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (I), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (J), by inserting ``and'' at the end; 
     and
       (3) by inserting after subparagraph (J) the following:
       ``(K) the amendment made by section 1302(a) of the 
     Emergency Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2013;''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the 
     American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-240).

     SEC. 1303. TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF EXTENDED BENEFIT 
                   PROVISIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 2005 of the Assistance for 
     Unemployed Workers and Struggling Families Act, as contained 
     in Public Law 111-5 (26 U.S.C. 3304 note), is amended--
       (1) by striking ``December 31, 2013'' each place it appears 
     and inserting ``March 31, 2014''; and
       (2) in subsection (c), by striking ``June 30, 2014'' and 
     inserting ``September 30, 2014''.
       (b) Extension of Matching for States With No Waiting 
     Week.--Section 5 of the Unemployment Compensation Extension 
     Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-449; 26 U.S.C. 3304 note) is 
     amended by striking ``June 30, 2014'' and inserting 
     ``September 30, 2014''.
       (c) Extension of Modification of Indicators Under the 
     Extended Benefit Program.--Section 203 of the Federal-State 
     Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970 (26 U.S.C. 
     3304 note) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (d), by striking ``December 31, 2013'' 
     and inserting ``March 31, 2014''; and
       (2) in subsection (f)(2), by striking ``December 31, 2013'' 
     and inserting ``March 31, 2014''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the 
     American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-240).

     SEC. 1304. ADDITIONAL EXTENDED UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS UNDER 
                   THE RAILROAD UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT.

       (a) Extension.--Section 2(c)(2)(D)(iii) of the Railroad 
     Unemployment Insurance Act (45 U.S.C. 352(c)(2)(D)(iii)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``June 30, 2013'' and inserting ``September 
     30, 2014''; and
       (2) by striking ``December 31, 2013'' and inserting ``March 
     31, 2014''.
       (b) Clarification on Authority To Use Funds.--Funds 
     appropriated under either the first or second sentence of 
     clause (iv) of section 2(c)(2)(D) of the Railroad 
     Unemployment Insurance Act shall be available to cover the 
     cost of additional extended unemployment benefits provided 
     under such section 2(c)(2)(D) by reason of the amendments 
     made by subsection (a) as well as to cover the cost of such 
     benefits provided under such section 2(c)(2)(D), as in effect 
     on the day before the date of enactment of this Act.

                   Subtitle B--Agricultural Programs

     SEC. 1311. ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS.

       (a) Extension.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     section, and notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     authorities provided by each provision of the Food, 
     Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-246; 122 
     Stat. 1651) and each amendment made by that Act (and for 
     mandatory programs at such funding levels), as in effect on 
     September 30, 2013, shall continue, and the Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall carry out the authorities, until the later 
     of--
       (1) September 30, 2014; and
       (2) the date specified in the provision of such Act or 
     amendment made by such Act.
       (b) Commodity Programs.--
       (1) In general.--The terms and conditions applicable to a 
     covered commodity or loan commodity (as those terms are 
     defined in section 1001 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy 
     Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8702)) or to peanuts, sugarcane, or 
     sugar beets for the 2012 crop year pursuant to title I of 
     such Act and each amendment made by that title shall be 
     applicable to the 2014 crop year for that covered commodity, 
     loan commodity, peanuts, sugarcane, or sugar beets.
       (2) Reduction in direct payments.--For purposes of applying 
     sections 1103 and 1303 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy 
     Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8713, 8753) for the 2014 crop year of a 
     covered commodity (as that term is defined in section 1001 of 
     such Act (7 U.S.C. 8702)) or peanuts, the Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall modify the terms ``base acres'' and 
     ``payment acres'' as otherwise defined in sections 1001 and 
     1301 of such Act (7 U.S.C. 8702, 8751) to realize savings of 
     $6,400,000,000 from direct payments for the 10-year period of 
     2014 through 2023.
       (3) Cotton.--The authority provided by the following 
     provisions of title I of the Food, Conservation, and Energy 
     Act of 2008 shall continue through July 31, 2015:
       (A) Section 1204(e)(2)(B) (7 U.S.C. 8734(e)(2)(B)) relating 
     to adjustment authority regarding prevailing world market 
     price.
       (B) Section 1207(a) (7 U.S.C. 8737(a)) relating to import 
     quota program.
       (C) Section 1208 (7 U.S.C. 8738) relating to special 
     competitive provisions for extra long staple cotton.
       (4) Suspension of permanent price support authorities.--The 
     provisions of law specified in subsections (a) through (c) of 
     section 1602 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 
     2008 (7 U.S.C. 8782) shall be suspended--
       (A) for the 2014 crop year of a covered commodity (as that 
     term is defined in section 1001 of such Act (7 U.S.C. 8702)), 
     peanuts, and sugar, as appropriate; and
       (B) in the case of milk, through December 31, 2014.


        THE VOTE ON THE PREVIOUS QUESTION: WHAT IT REALLY MEANS

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX,

[[Page H7714]]

this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed 
by 5-minute votes on adoption of House Resolution 438, if ordered, and 
agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 227, 
nays 195, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 637]

                               YEAS--227

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--195

     Andrews
     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Bishop (GA)
     Castro (TX)
     Culberson
     Doyle
     McCarthy (NY)
     McMorris Rodgers
     Radel
     Rush
     Wasserman Schultz

                              {time}  1424

  Ms. FRANKEL of Florida changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 637 a vote on ordering 
the previous question, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

                          ____________________