[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 178 (Monday, December 16, 2013)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1886-E1887]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS RESOLUTION, 2014

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                             HON. RUSH HOLT

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, December 12, 2013

  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this new Ryan-Murray 
budget agreement because it is a strong continuation of an anti-
government, pessimistic policy that has been plaguing Washington in 
recent years.
  Make no mistake about it; this budget agreement is the direct result 
of the Budget Control Act, which I strongly opposed when it was being 
debated 2011, and this agreement takes us backwards. I knew then 
sequester would wreak havoc on our economy, threaten our quality of 
life, and squeeze the most vulnerable among us.
  Here we are, over two years later, and the worst of it is coming 
true. The sequester has cut research, education, infrastructure, 
Medicare, and a number of other critical investments that are vital to 
a growing economy. It is robbing America of the opportunity to rise 
from the Great Recession as a stronger, more vibrant nation. Instead, 
the sequester is continuing to weaken our country with a shrunken 
government that is hampered by deep cuts to the safety net and hobbled 
by a refusal to invest in our future. This budget agreement from 
Congressman Ryan and Senator Murray is a way to partially and minimally 
reverse cuts that should never have happened in the first place.
  It is a compromise in a narrow, Washington kind of sense: It will 
gain some votes from Democrats and some votes from Republicans. But 
let's remember how the BCA came to be enacted: In 2011, Republicans 
held hostage America's credit rating by threatening to default on our 
debts if they didn't get what they wanted. No true compromise was 
possible then because the negotiations were conducted in the midst of a 
hostage crisis. No compromise is possible now because we are still 
operating within the framework created by that hostage crisis.
  The question we should ask ourselves is, ``Where are we trying to go 
as a country?'' We should be striving toward an optimistic future--one 
where we invest in research, education, infrastructure, and more. By 
that measure, this is a bad deal.

[[Page E1887]]

  The agreement--not really a compromise--slashes discretionary 
spending and tinkers with a few other things like raising fees on 
airline tickets, decreasing reimbursement to Medicare providers, and 
lowering military retirement pensions. How could we actually think this 
is the kind of path forward for our country?
  There is no attempt to close tax loopholes on corporate jet or on 
expenses of oil and gas companies, and makes no effort in asking the 
wealthiest among us to pay their fair share to live in an orderly, 
humane, equitable society. Favored corporate interests, millionaires, 
and billionaires will continue to receive special tax breaks as far as 
the eye can see while unemployment insurance expires, leaving millions 
struggling to find work out in the cold just weeks after Christmas. 
That is not the sort of fair, balanced deal that Americans have asked 
for and expect from their leaders.

                          ____________________