[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.''
____________________