Providing for a correction in the enrollment of H.R. 3547.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, what we have before us can be described--very charitably--as a mixed bag. This is a 1,500-page bill that nobody has actually read. This is, by the way, two-sided. It came before the Rules Committee less than 24 hours after it was filed. Because of this rule and the process used to create the bill, no Member, Republican or Democrat, will have the opportunity to amend it or change it in any way.

To top it all off, the legislative vehicle that the Republican leadership is using to rocket this bill over to the Senate is H.R. 3547, the Space Launch Liability Indemnification Act. No wonder the American people think Congress is living on another planet.

When people talk about regular order, this ain't it.

But we are where we are. And I do want to thank Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member Lowey, and the House and Senate appropriators for their hard work in putting the underlying omnibus appropriations bill together.

I will support this bill, very reluctantly, because the alternative is far worse--yet another Republican shutdown of the government, yet another unnecessary economically devastating and politically motivated mess, yet another attempt by congressional Republicans to damage an economy still

struggling to recover from the worst recession in our lifetimes.

So, yes, I will vote for the bill, but we need to curb our enthusiasm. The numbers in this bill are awful. They may be slightly less awful than the Republican sequester numbers, but they are still awful.

Fewer kids will be cut from Head Start, but we are nowhere near meeting our educational needs. More funds will be provided for critical medical research, but not enough. There will be more funding for LIHEAP for our cities and towns and for antihunger programs. While it begins to undo the sequester, it does so for only 2 years. We need to get rid of it forever--permanently.

With this bill, we are waist-deep instead of neck-deep in manure. Hooray, I guess.

Even so, I am sure that many Tea Party members of this House will vote against this bill today because they still think it spends too much. All of the right-wing outside groups who really call the shots around here are whipping hard against it.

But more importantly, Madam Speaker, what is missing from this bill or from the Republican leadership's agenda is any acknowledgment of the immediate problem of millions of people who are losing their long-term unemployment benefits.

On December 28, 1.3 million unemployed Americans saw their long-term unemployment insurance expire, including more than 58,000 in Massachusetts. Since then, unemployment insurance has expired for an additional 72,000 more Americans each week. Yet the Republicans continue to do nothing.

Let me remind my colleagues how we got here.

After a difficult economic period in the early nineties and prolonged budget fights, President Clinton left us with a budget surplus, a surplus that was then squandered through unpaid-for wars and reckless tax cuts championed by President Bush and the Republican Congress. The Clinton surplus turned into a then-record deficit that was exacerbated by the global recession that started at the end of the Bush administration.

Six years after President Bush left office, we still have an unacceptable level of unemployment and an economy that is getting better for some while, at the same time, leaving many behind. And that is where unemployment insurance comes in.

This program is a lifeline for millions of people who lost their jobs--for most, because of the recession and not because of any issues regarding job performance. Unemployment insurance helps millions of families pay their bills and put food on their tables, things they could do if they had jobs, but they can't because they are unemployed.

Yet Republicans in the Senate continue to filibuster a bill to extend unemployment insurance, and the House Republican leadership refuses even to consider any bill. We can't even get a bill on this floor so that Members of both sides of the aisle can have a chance to express their views. It is shameful, it is unconscionable, and it hurts our economic growth.

Madam Speaker, this isn't about some abstract piece of Federal policy. This is about the lives of our own citizens. It is about our neighbors who are simply trying to get by. It is about people who are willing to work but need help until they find a new job. They deserve a hell of a lot better than they are getting from this Congress.

Madam Speaker, I urge that we defeat the previous question. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will allow the House to hold a vote on a clean, 3-month unemployment insurance extension. This has been introduced by my colleague from Massachusetts, Congressman Tierney. If Congress doesn't act, over 18 million Americans will be denied the vital relief that they so greatly depend upon.

Madam Speaker, 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.

Madam Speaker, I will again, before this debate is over, remind my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question.

Let me just close, again, by saying we need to move this process forward. I expect that that is what this omnibus will do. But we are about to leave for a break, starting tomorrow, one of the many breaks that the Republican leadership constantly gives us. So we are going to leave town, and meanwhile all these millions of Americans who are depending on us to help them get through this difficult time are just going to be left alone. We are going to turn our backs on them. That is, to me, unconscionable.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand with us and defeat the previous question so we can deal with this issue of unemployment insurance.

With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the ranking member on the Committee on Ways and Means.

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), who is the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee.

Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Swalwell) for a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) for a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko) for a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) for a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus) for a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano) for a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter) for a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez) for a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), my colleague, for a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) for a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) for a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Horsford) for a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ruiz) for a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardenas) for a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Frankel) for a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Brownley) for a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright) for a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline) for a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, I yield to my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).

Madam Speaker, let me just say to my colleague from Oklahoma, we are not asking to amend this bill. We are asking for the right to be able to bring up a bill that would extend unemployment insurance.

Let's be clear so everybody understands this. The majority, if they agreed, could allow us to bring this up at any time. We could have this debate right after we pass the omnibus. So there is absolutely no reason at all that we shouldn't have the right to be able to debate the issue of extending unemployment insurance to millions of our fellow citizens who are looking to us for help.

It is very challenging during these economically difficult times to be able to find employment, and we have many of our citizens who have tried but have been unsuccessful in finding employment. They ought to be able to support their families through this difficult time. All we are asking for is the right to be able to bring this up and vote on it. We are not talking about delaying passing the omnibus bill. We are talking about unemployment insurance. We

are talking about doing our job and not skipping town and going home for a week while people who are unemployed and have lost their benefits have nothing.

With that, Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), whose legislation we could bring up, if we were to defeat the previous question, to extend unemployment insurance for the millions of Americans that have been impacted.

Madam Speaker, before I yield to the next speaker on our side, I think it is important to point out that, yeah, the Democrats do control the majority in the Senate, but a majority of Republicans right now are filibustering consideration of extending unemployment insurance, led by Mitch McConnell, the Republican minority leader.

Maybe rather than waiting for them we can show some leadership here and demonstrate to these millions of Americans who have fallen on tough times that somebody cares; that we are not just going to let them just dangle and be without any kind of compensation during these difficult times; that we are going to step up to the plate and let them know that we understand that the economy is still going through hard times and that there is a need to extend this benefit.

I don't know how we can just turn our backs on these people who are struggling. I mean, our job here is to help people, not to ignore their problems, not to turn a cold shoulder when they fall on difficult times. We all know we are emerging from one of the worst economic crises in our lifetime. These aren't normal times. So we ought to be there to provide some help. Let us show them a little compassion. I don't think that that is unreasonable. I don't care what your ideology is. We ought to not turn our backs on those who are unemployed in this country.

With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nevada, (Mr. Horsford).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Oklahoma's comments, and I appreciate his expressing the frustration of the minority in the Senate not being able to express themselves, to be heard. I feel that same frustration here because we now have just completed a year in which I think that there have been more closed rules than any other time in history. So I think we all on the minority side here understand what it feels like to be shut out.

At this point, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard).

Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield to our distinguished minority whip, Mr. Hoyer, for a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).

Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) for a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Madam Speaker, let me just remind my colleagues that Republican President George Bush extended unemployment benefits on a number of occasions, never paid for it; and I don't recall my friends on the other side of the aisle raising a big to-do over that.

But the bottom line is to simply say that, well, we have extended it multiple times, so tough luck to these people who are still struggling in this difficult economy is unacceptable. How can we do that? We are here to represent these people and to make sure that they have enough to get through these difficult times until the economy gets better so they can get a job.

This should not be controversial. This shouldn't be a big deal. I am stunned that extending unemployment insurance to the unemployed in this country is a controversial issue. Only in this Republican-led House of Representatives are our priorities all messed up. Nobody talks about pay-fors for tax cuts for Donald Trump or subsidies to Big Oil or any special deals for corporate donors to the Republican National Committee. No one says a word about that. But when it comes to extending benefits to unemployed Americans, we are going to find pay- fors.

Well, do you know what? Let's take the initiative in this House to figure out how to get this thing done rather than leave town tomorrow and we don't come back for a week and a half and just leave these people hanging.

With that, Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).

I do.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) for a unanimous consent request.

I will be the last speaker on our side.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, just to kind of summarize here, my colleagues are being asked to vote on this, over 1,500 pages that nobody has read. And again, coming from the party that talked about reading the bill, I am a little surprised that they wanted to present it this way. But I am urging my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule simply because, under the process that we have before us, nobody has an opportunity to amend anything in this bill or change anything. I am willing to bet that in a week or so we are going to read an article about something that was in here that nobody even knew about, and if they did, they would have wanted it out of the bill. So I think the process that my Republican friends have utilized in this House of Representatives really is very disappointing--the number of closed rules, the way they have shut down debate, and even the way we have gotten to this point. So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule.

At the end of the day, people are going to have to vote for this bill anyway because the alternative is shutting the government down or going back to the sequestration levels which my Republican friends embraced, which were unacceptable--so unacceptable they couldn't pass a Transportation appropriations bill on this House floor. They couldn't bring an HHS bill to this floor because the numbers were so unacceptably low that even their own Members couldn't deal with voting for a bill like that. As far as the underlying bill goes, I think the best that can be said about it is it begins to chip away at sequestration. The numbers are still awful, but the alternative is even worse.

I would also urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can bring up a bill to extend unemployment insurance for those who are unemployed. I am fascinated by the debate on the other side of the aisle saying we are reluctant to do it because we have done it a number of times. That seems more important to my Republican colleagues than whether or not people are in need, whether or not it is necessary to extend these benefits to keep families afloat.

Because Congress failed to act, more than 1.3 million struggling unemployed Americans were cut off from extended emergency unemployment benefits in the middle of the holidays. We all went home for Christmas, and the gift we gave to these struggling Americans was we cut off their unemployment compensation. Another 1.9 million Americans will lose this support in the first half of this year if we don't do anything.

Too many families are still struggling to rebuild and regain what they had before the economic crisis. It is both unfair and devastating to cut off these benefits at the time of a 7.0 percent unemployment rate. We should not leave Washington tomorrow, on a Thursday, and go home for a week and a half and not address this issue. To blame the Senate, maybe it is an easy way to just kind of brush this off, but the bottom line is in the Senate, if you want to be of any help, talk to the minority leader who is leading a filibuster so that this can't be brought up over in the Senate.

But that is no excuse for us in the House not to act. That is no excuse for us to turn our back on millions of Americans who desperately need our help. They are going through difficult times. Our job here is to help people, not just those who are well off, not just those who have super-PACs or who write out checks to campaigns. Our job is to help everybody, and that includes those who are the most vulnerable in this, those who are struggling during this difficult economy.

Madam Speaker, I include for the Record an editorial that appeared in The New York Times, entitled, ``No Jobs, No Benefits, and Lousy Pay.'' I will also include for the Record an article, entitled, ``New Economic Analysis: $400 Million Drained from State Economies in Unemployment Benefits This Week Alone.''

By not extending unemployment benefits, we are not only hurting these families who are unemployed, we are hurting our local economies. We are hurting the economy of this country. We need to get our priorities straight here. Our job is to stand up for those who are in need. On too many occasions, this Republican-led House has turned its back on those who are most vulnerable.

So I urge my colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, to vote ``no'' on the previous question. This is our only opportunity before you go home on a recess to be able to deal with the issue of extending unemployment insurance. Vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can bring up the extension of unemployment compensation so we can help millions of families in this country who are desperately in need of help.

I yield back the balance of my time.

[From the New York Times, Jan. 10, 2014]

No Jobs, No Benefits, and Lousy Pay

(By The Editorial Board)

There is nothing good to say about the December employment

report, which showed that only 74,000 jobs were added last

month. But dismal as it was, the report came at an opportune

political moment. The new numbers rebut the Republican

arguments that jobless benefits need not be renewed, and that

the current minimum wage is adequate. At the same time, they

underscore the need, only recently raised to the top of the

political agenda, to combat poverty and inequality.

The report showed that average monthly job growth in 2013

was 182,000, basically unchanged from 2012. Even the decline

in the jobless rate last month, from 7 percent in November to

6.7 percent, was a sign of weakness: It mainly reflects a

shrinking labor force not new hiring as the share of workers

employed or looking for work fell to the lowest level since

1978. That's a tragic waste of human capital. It would be

comforting to ascribe the dwindling labor force mainly to

retirements or other longterm changes, but most of the

decline is due to weak job opportunities and weak labor

demand since the Great Recession.

One result is that the share of jobless workers who have

been unemployed for six months or longer has remained

stubbornly high. In December, it was nearly 38 percent, still

higher by far than at any time before the Great Recession, in

records going back to 1948.

And yet, nearly 1.3 million of those long-term unemployed

had their federal jobless benefits abruptly cut off at the

end of last year, after Republicans refused to renew the

federal unemployment program in the latest budget deal. Each

week the program is not reinstated, another 72,000 jobless

people who otherwise would have qualified for benefits will

find there is no longer a federal program to turn to. Worse,

in the Senate this week, after a show of willingness to

discuss renewing the benefits, Republicans objected to a bill

to do just that. They had demanded that a renewal be paid

for, but they didn't like how Democrats proposed to do that--

with spending cuts at the end of the budget window in 2024 in

exchange for relief today.

There was no need to pay for the benefits, which have such

a crucial and positive effect--on families, the economy and

poverty--that it would be sound to renew them even if the

government borrowed to do so. But Republicans would rather

criticize President Obama's handling of the economy than help

those left behind.

A similar dynamic is developing around the drive for a

higher minimum wage. In the December jobs report, the average

hourly wage for most workers was $20.35. That means that the

minimum wage, at $7.25 an hour, is only one-third of the

average, rather than one-half, as was the case historically.

Raising the wage to $10.10 an hour, as Democrats have

proposed, would help to restore the historical relationship.

But even that would fall far short of the roughly $17 an hour

that workers at the bottom of the wage scale would be earning

if increased labor productivity were reflected in their pay,

rather than in corporate profits, executive compensation and

shareholder returns.

Republicans, however, are opposed to any increase, as if

the numbers don't speak for themselves. Their stance also

dismisses research, and common sense, which says that raising

the wages of low- and moderate-income workers is essential

for lessening both poverty and inequality.

Instead, in the past week, they have introduced ostensibly

``antipoverty'' ideas, most prominently Senator Marco Rubio's

plan to transform federal safety net programs into state

block grants, another of the shopworn Republican ideas that

also include privatizing federal services and slashing

domestic spending. Block grants have allowed states to

disregard the needs of the least fortunate. The proposal

would set back the debate on wages, poverty and inequality.

The December jobs report is telling Congress what it needs

to do. Unfortunately, that will not lead to action anytime

soon.

New Economic Analysis: 400 Million Drained from State Economies in

Unemployment Benefits This Week Alone--January 3, 2014

Washington.--The expiration of federal unemployment

insurance at the end of last week is already taking more than

400 million out of the pockets a SHARE of American job

seekers nationwide and state economies, according to a new

analysis by Ways and Means Committee Democrats. Unemployment

insurance is viewed as a very effective fiscal stimulus

because jobless Americans tend to spend their unemployment

insurance right away. The analysis spells out how much

federal funding each state is going without in the first week

since the emergency Federal Unemployment Compensation program

expired. In Illinois, nearly 82,000 people lost an average

313 weekly benefit for a total statewide economic impact of

25 million. In Ohio, more than 39,000 people lost an average

weekly benefit of 312 for a total statewide economic impact

of 12 million.

At 11 a.m. this morning, Ways and Means Ranking Member

Sander Levin (0-MI) and Democratic Whip Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD)

will join former Labor Secretary Robert Reich and Harvard

economist Lawrence Katz in holding a press call to highlight

the harmful economic impact that will result if Republicans

in Congress don't agree to extend the program.

``In state after state, Americans who have lost their

federal unemployment insurance in one fell swoop last week

are struggling to get by,'' said Ways and Means Ranking

Member Levin. ``Every week that Republicans fail to act tens

of thousands of additional long-term unemployed Americans

lose this vital lifeline as they look to get back on their

feet after the worst recession in generations, and the

economy in each state is taking a hit.''

Overall, failing to renew the EUC program will cost the

economy 200,000 jobs this year, according to the

Congressional Budget Office. Note that the below estimate is

conservative because it only takes into account the total

dollar amount provided per week by the now expired EUC

program. Economists generally multiply these estimates by 1.5

to 2 to show the true economic impact.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Number of

people who Avg. weekly Total

State lost benefit benefit lost

benefits lost this week

Dec. 28 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 458 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Worcester, Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my colleague and friend, 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

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for the consideration of H.R. 3547. The rule authorizes the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations to offer a motion that the House concur in the Senate amendment with the House amendment consisting of the text of the fiscal year 2014 omnibus appropriations bill.

The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations. Additionally, the rule conforms the title to the content of the bill by providing for the passage of an enrollment correction after the adoption of Chairman Rogers' motion.

Lastly, Madam Speaker, the rule provides floor management tools to be used during next week's recess.

Madam Speaker, I want to commend my good friends Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Lowey for bringing to this House a bipartisan bill that brings to a close the fiscal year 2014 appropriations process while maintaining the Republican commitment to fiscal responsibility.

Since Republicans took control of the House, we have cut discretionary spending 4 years in a row--the first time since the Korean war. At the same time, this bill provides no new funding for the Affordable Care Act and also includes a pension fix for medically retired personnel and survivor benefit plan annuitants. While there is still work to be done to ensure that we honor the service of our veterans and military retirees, this is a good, bipartisan first step.

Madam Speaker, I know many of my friends here voted against the Ryan- Murray compromise budget, and they voted against the fiscal cliff deal of 2011. However, look at where these pieces of legislation have brought us. We have cut discretionary spending 4 years in a row, to a level $164 billion below the fiscal year 2008 level, the last year of the Bush Presidency. That is a feat to be commended. We have dealt with tax expenditures, in part, as a portion of the fiscal cliff deal. Yet, despite this progress, we still have not been able to close over $600 billion of our annual budget deficit.

Madam Speaker, discretionary spending has paid more than its fair share in dealing with our budget deficit. Entitlements such as Medicare and Medicaid spending and other mandatory programs must be reformed in order to put us on a path to a balanced budget.

With the passage of this omnibus, which releases us from the threat of a government shutdown, we are showing the American people that we actually are capable of working in a bipartisan manner. I hope in the future we can work to capitalize on our bipartisan success and bring America's bloated debt and deficit under control.

Madam Speaker, passing this rule and this omnibus spending bill is the responsible thing to do. It is the thoughtful thing to do. As opposed to lurching from crisis to crisis, this omnibus is carefully crafted over a period of many months. And it sets priorities, controls spending, and reasserts congressional authority over the appropriations process far more effectively than yet another continuing resolution ever could.

Many of our colleagues have not seen regular order in the appropriations process. And, sadly, until the Senate is able to pass bills for us to conference together, I think we will be forced into relying on omnibuses in the future. But this is not a continuing resolution. The Ryan-Murray agreement gives us a reasonable foundation for our work in fiscal year 2015.

With that, I urge support of the rule and the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to respond to my friend.

I want to thank my friend for his support of what is a bipartisan bill, a bill for which the President of the United States also issued a statement of support. We appreciate that. I would suggest that we are actually doing what my friend quite often suggested we do--work in a bipartisan manner and arrive at a common solution.

I would add one thing to my friend's description of the 1990s. We ought to give a little bit of credit to the Republican majority who actually voted for those agreements--when most Democrats did not--that balanced the budget, and particularly Speaker Gingrich, because, with all due respect to President Clinton, he never once submitted a balanced budget.

With that, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), my good friend, a colleague from the Rules Committee and a classmate.

I yield my friend an additional 2 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a great Member from Mississippi (Mr. Palazzo), my friend and colleague.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

No, Madam Speaker, I do not.

No, Madam Speaker, I will not.

My good friend from the other side of the aisle clearly hasn't dealt with a lot of Native Americans, where the answer is normally pretty much the same. So, Madam Speaker, I do not yield.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend for giving me the opportunity to renew so many acquaintances with my good friends on the other side and make some new ones. So I appreciate that.

I want to reiterate my earlier announcement that all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only, and we are not yielding for any other purposes.

I would like to make the point that this legislation is genuinely bipartisan. The legislation that my friends have asked for consideration was not within the scope of consideration of this legislation. I have no doubt it is being dealt with in the Senate right now, but it is simply not appropriate, in my opinion, to bring it into this debate, particularly since we are under time constraints. Were we to fail to pass this rule and the underlying legislation in a timely fashion, we would risk a government shutdown, which I know my friends on the other side of the aisle want to avoid as much as we do.

So, with that, I reserve the balance of my time, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I want to remind my good friend that this legislation is comparable, and this is actually under consideration in the United States Senate right now. Frankly, my friends on the other side of the aisle control the majority there.

I would also like to remind them that when the President first raised this issue about a week before the end of the year, the Speaker said, If you will help us find a way to pay for it, we will consider it. So far I don't recall that that offer has been taken up in any serious way by anybody.

The cost of this is extraordinary: $25 billion over a year; a temporary 3-month extension would cost between 7 and 8. We are trying to deal with what have been, really, deficits that have been extraordinary. This program has been extended for 5 years.

Again, we would love to continue our dialogue with our friends. We hope something productive happens in the United State Senate. For now I am going to keep the focus where it belongs. That is on this omnibus spending bill, which is a bipartisan accomplishment, which the President has urged that we pass, which I know many of my friends on the other side also favor.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I want to remind my friends--and I have no doubt about my friend's compassion, I genuinely do not. We have had the opportunity to serve together on the Rules Committee. I would argue the compassionate thing to do here would be actually to start creating jobs.

This recession ended in 2009. It has been a lot of years. We have 140 pieces of legislation stacked up in the United States Senate waiting for the Senate to act on that we think would generate jobs, everything from Keystone pipeline to enhanced energy production. There is a disagreement, but I think if the Senate would act proactively we would actually do what I know we both want to do and create jobs.

The other thing I would suggest, I have some sympathy with my friends on the other side of the rotunda in my party. They have not been allowed to present any of their ideas or any of their amendments on the floor. I think they would probably like to work with our friend in that regard, let's just see.

Again, I would suggest today we should concentrate on the thing that we know we can do in a bipartisan fashion: pass an omnibus spending bill that will prevent a government shutdown and will provide a firm foundation for our economy that both sides and the President of the United States have agreed is the right thing to do for the country.

You usually make progress one step at a time. It seems to me that is an important step and a step we ought to make today by passing the rule and the underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I remind my friends on the other side of the aisle that supposedly we are in the 5th year of a recovery and that we have extended these extraordinary benefits for 5 years at the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars.

Now, the Speaker has indicated that if our friends, either the administration, our friends on the other side of the aisle, or our friends in the Senate have an idea how to pay for this extension, he would give it due consideration. So far, it doesn't appear that such an idea has been forthcoming.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, could I inquire from my friend if he has any additional speakers.

In that case, I will reserve the balance of my time.

I thank my friend.

Madam Speaker, in a few moments, I will offer an amendment to the rule. The amendment is necessary due to a late request submitted by the administration to ensure that the fix for disabled military retirees works as it was intended. The amendment was fully vetted by the relevant House and Senate committees, majority and minority, and the administration. The

Congressional Budget Office has confirmed that the change does not affect the cost of the bill. This amendment will ensure that we properly execute the agreed-upon compromise.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, in closing, I would again like to thank my friends Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Lowey for their efforts to bring an important product to this floor, a product which fulfills our constitutional responsibility of appropriating funds for the government for the fiscal year 2014.

While this is not the bill I would have drafted, or I am sure that my friend would have drafted, I believe it strikes an appropriate balance between key Republican and Democratic priorities, and I believe it will attract the majority of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle as well as the majority of my friends on my own side of the aisle.

I want to thank my friend in the sense that, while we have had a contentious debate, we are actually going to be, on the underlying legislation, voting together. That may have been gotten lost in the debate. I will be voting with the majority of his colleagues and at the urging of the President of the United States. So we ought to recognize that, while we have had some partisan differences here, the legislation itself was crafted in a bipartisan manner. It was brought to this floor. I would agree with my friend, I would have preferred 12 different bills and a lot more time, but we have a limited time frame here. It was brought in a cooperative manner. Both the ranking member and the chairman are urging its passage. It is something that we ought to take, frankly, some pride in and certainly congratulate those who had a hand in it.

I want to also point out to my friend on the unemployment issue, here we probably do disagree. But the Speaker has made it apparent, if there are appropriate pay-fors, he is willing to consider that. Without questioning my friends on the other side of the rotunda, so far they simply have not provided that. I think the Speaker's offer has been out since before the end of the year, since before the benefits ended.

It is also worth noting that this does not affect regular unemployment benefits. Those are still there for all Americans. This is a program which has been extended 5 years. We are now in a time when the recession is 4 years in the rearview mirror. Unemployment has been coming down. If it still needs to be extended for some people, we ought to find a way, in my view, to pay for it, and I think the Speaker has made it apparent that he would consider any serious proposal in that regard. So far, we haven't had that.

Sometimes, Madam Speaker, the smart vote and the easy vote are the wrong vote. I know some of my friends on the other side might decide to vote ``no'' on the underlying legislation. I never quibble with a rule vote. I respect that process because from their perspective there is a lot to criticize here. Certainly from my side of the aisle, there is a lot to criticize as well. We are going to have some ``no'' votes. But I think there is not much question that the right vote here is to vote for the underlying legislation, assuming that the rule is adopted, and I think it will be. I think it is the right thing for the country. I think it is the right thing for the process itself to actually get back to regular order, to consider the bills in the manner that I know my friend would like them to be considered in, and to have an open amendment process, which we do on appropriations legislation. This is an essential first step to doing that.

I think that Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Lowey have probably done more in this legislation to restore the process and rebuild. They have given us a foundation for the next fiscal year that will allow us to do precisely the things that my friend would like to do and that I agree, in a normal process, ought to be done.

So I would obviously urge support for the rule, but more importantly, after the rule passes, assuming it does, the underlying legislation so that we can work together in a bipartisan fashion; we can make sure that we have no government shutdowns next year. I think that will do more to create jobs and economic certainty than probably any single thing we could do.

Our Appropriations Committee, working in a bipartisan fashion under the leadership of Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Lowey, has done that. I would suggest that this probably is something that all of us should reflect upon, congratulate upon, and then try to spread throughout the institution. If we worked the way they worked in putting this bill together and bringing it to the floor on every other piece of legislation, I think the country would be well served; and, frankly, all of us would have a great deal to be proud of. With that, again, I urge the passage of the rule and the underlying legislation.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Cole

Madam Speaker, I offer an amendment to the resolution.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the amendment and on the resolution.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 458, I call up the bill (H.R. 3547) to extend the application of certain space launch liability provisions through

2014, with the Senate amendments thereto, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the consideration of H.R. 3547, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today to bring to the floor, Madam Speaker, an amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 3547. This is the consolidated appropriations package that will fund the government for the remainder of the 2014 fiscal year.

This omnibus contains all 12 regular appropriations bills for fiscal year 2014--funding every aspect of the Federal Government, from our national defense to critical transportation infrastructure to the education of our kids. In total, it provides $1.012 trillion in discretionary funding--the same level delineated in the Ryan-Murray budget agreement.

I am pleased that Senator Mikulski and I were able to come to this fair, bipartisan agreement on funding the government. Although our differences were many and our deadlines short, we were able to come together to draft a solid piece of legislation that meets the guidelines of the Ryan-Murray agreement and keeps the government open.

I understand that not everyone will like everything in this bill. That is the nature of compromise. But I believe this legislation reflects the best possible outcome. We made responsible choices to realign the Nation's funding priorities, targeting precious tax dollars to where they are needed the most.

We have continued the 4-year trend of reducing Federal discretionary spending, making a total of $165 billion in cuts since fiscal year 2010. In fact, this is the fourth straight year that we have cut discretionary spending. That has not happened since the Korean war. And we have remained committed on our side to our Republican principles: reducing regulatory burdens, fortifying our national security, and enforcing stringent oversight on the executive branch.

Throughout the bill, we have maintained pro-life policies and protected Second Amendment rights. We have made sure that this bill provides no new funding for ObamaCare, and have even cut existing ObamaCare funds to the tune of over $1 billion.

The Appropriations Committees in the House and Senate, working side- by-side, went line-by-line through thousands of agencies and the 12 regular appropriations bills to make sure that each program was weighed individually and received a funding level that supports their most current needs.

We have prioritized funding for the most important and effective programs and reduced lower-priority programs at

the same time. For example, we did not include any funding for high- speed rail or three new Department of Homeland Security headquarter buildings, but we targeted funding to essential national defense activities, critical law enforcement programs, and lifesaving efforts, such as medical research.

This bill also includes an important provision fixing the Bipartisan Budget Act to ensure that those who have given the most in military service, the approximately 630,000 medically retired personnel and survivor benefit plan recipients, our disabled veterans, receive their full yearly cost-of-living increase.

Before I close, Madam Speaker, I would like to take a moment to thank the many, many people who were integral in getting this bill to the floor today.

First, I thank the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, Mrs. Lowey. Thanks to her partnership and her dedication, we were able to wrap up this omnibus by the deadline, and I know her drive extends to our next challenge--the 2015 bills that we will start next month. In fact, the passage of this bill will allow the Appropriations Committee to get back to regular order, as they say, get the train back on track so that this coming year we can do 12 individual bills brought to the floor separately, as is the practice and is required. I want to thank her for her leadership in helping us get to that point.

Secondly, our counterparts in the Senate, whose open-minded approach to negotiations led to many honest and reasonable discussions throughout the many stages of this process. I don't know any appropriations bill that has gone through as many reasonable tests and, I think, wise decision processes as went into this bill. So I appreciated the work of the gentlelady on the Senate side, the chairman of the committee there, Ms. Mikulski, and Senator Shelby of Alabama. We had wonderful times at Christmas and New Year's. Next time, as much as I love these people, I would rather be with my family.

Lastly, I want to thank the members and the staffs of the committee. They gave up countless hours of family time at Christmas, New Year's, and during the holidays in order to complete this bill. They really are the A-team. I am lucky to have all of them working for this committee. Without their hard work, expertise on the issues, and their commitment to this legislation, we would not be here today. We should all be grateful for their service. I hope that you will say something to them as you pass.

I would particularly like to recognize the clerk of the Agriculture Subcommittee, Martin Delgado. After 16 years, this is his last bill with the committee. How fortunate we have been to have him until the end. No one knows the ins and outs of Agriculture appropriations like he does. He is a true expert in every sense of the word. We will miss him dearly and wish him Godspeed.

Let me also mention the chief clerk of the committee, Will Smith, who sits beside me. He has led the effort from day one. He has put in untold numbers of hours--day and night, weekends, all-nights--to bring us to this point. He has been a great staff leader. He has done a fantastic job. I want you to say something to him.

On the other side of the aisle, his counterpart, David Pomerantz has been a terrific asset to the committee and to piecing together this very difficult, complex bill. We want to say thank you to David Pomerantz for his great work.

Jim Kulikowski, who also sits beside me, the number two clerk in the committee, has been invaluable in getting us to this point.

Madam Speaker, in closing, I would like to once again remind our colleagues that providing funding for our Federal Government is one of our chief duties as Members of Congress. In fact, I think it is the chief duty, one that we can't shirk. The people elected us to fulfill this duty and govern. To govern, you have got to pass these funding bills for the government.

As we pass these funding bills, the imprint of Members of Congress on these funding bills directs agencies of the executive branch to follow the will of the people represented here in this body. So this bill is a reflection of the need for Members of Congress, under the Constitution, to decide how and when and why money is spent by the executive branch. The people elected us to fulfill that duty, and this bill does just that. Three and a half months into the fiscal year, I would say it was just about past time that we pass this legislation.

So I urge an ``aye'' vote on the omnibus. We can send it to the Senate today for their approval and get it to the President for his signature as soon as possible. Certainly, before Saturday.

With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), a very hardworking and longtime classmate of mine, chairman of the Commerce, Justice, Science Subcommittee.

(Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, most of the provisions of this bill were written by the subcommittees on the House and Senate side and worked out between them. One of the chief writers of the bill is Rodney Frelinghuysen, the new chairman of the Defense Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee. His part of the bill was, by far, the biggest of anybody else's. It was only $572 billion.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) to explain that.

(Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt), the distinguished chairman of the Agriculture Subcommittee on Appropriations.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson), the chairman of the Energy and Water Subcommittee on Appropriations.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw), the subcommittee chairman that drafted the Financial Services part of the omnibus bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter), the author of the Homeland Security portion of the omnibus bill, the chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), the chairman of the Interior portion of the bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the House Science Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent), a member of our committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Herrera Beutler).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) for the purpose of a colloquy.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Yes, the gentleman from Ohio is correct. The bill includes additional funding for flood control studies, and the report direction encourages the Corps to consider economic development and job growth when allocating these funds to individual studies.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the bill and want to acknowledge and thank Mr. Rogers. We came here together in 1981, and I think what Mr. Rogers and Mrs. Lowey have done, along with Senator Mikulski and Senator Shelby, has been amazing.

I also want to thank my friend, Mr. Fattah, for his partnership and help. Thank you. You have done a great job.

I want to acknowledge the staff, Mike Ringler, Leslie Albright, Jeff Ashford, Diana Simpson and Colin Samples, as well as Bob Bonner and Matt Smith. They have done an incredible job. If the American people could have seen the hours--and I want to thank them.

This bill today totals $51.6 billion, which is $1.44 billion below the enacted 2013 level. We have reduced spending by more than $12 billion for agencies funded in the CJS.

There is no reason why anyone would vote against this bill. We are even $200 million below FY 2008. So they have done an incredible job.

The bill also includes $8.3 billion for the FBI to fight crime and protect the Nation from further terrorist attacks, and it expands the FBI's capabilities.

Also, in addition, there is $1 million for an independent review to report to Congress, to be conducted by an outside commission to look at the progress made over the last decade on the implementation of the 9/ 11 Commission.

I lost several hundred people from my district who died, and we lost 3,000 Americans. We want to find out what recommendations were made, how well the FBI is doing, and so that is very, very important. I expect the FBI to cooperate, and I know they will.

I appreciate Mr. Fattah, and also Mr. Mollohan, who is not here. We establish the Charles Colson, Chuck Colson Task Force on Federal Corrections.

We cannot put men and women in prison for years and do nothing, and I think this offers an opportunity to really reform the prison commission system. Then Mr. Goodlatte and the Judiciary Committee can do amazing things.

The bill also brings about repatriation programs to bring jobs back to America, not to have companies going abroad but to come back, and I appreciate the Secretary of Commerce Pritzker really cooperating and working on this.

Lastly, it funds the sciences at a very, very high level. With regard to NASA, the bill includes $17.65 billion for NASA, including funding for America's next generation space launch system, the Orion Crew Vehicle, as well as full funding for cutting-edge aeronautics and research to keep America competitive.

Again, I just want to close by congratulating and thanking Mr. Rogers. We came here in 1981. We were considered Reagan robots. I wasn't supposed to be here, and another guy who wasn't supposed to be here, Chris Smith, he is still here, and Mr. Rogers. They will be the leaders of the class that is left. We had 54.

I just want to thank him for what he has done, and the staff on both sides, and the Members, for bringing this bill and returning to regular order.

Again, Mr. Fattah, my fellow native Philadelphian, thank you for everything that you have done.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this Consolidated Appropriations Act, which includes the fiscal year 2014 Commerce- Justice-Science appropriations act.

I would like to thank my colleague and Ranking Member, Mr. Fattah, for his support throughout this process. I would also extend my thanks to Chairman Rogers, Senator Mikulski and Senator Shelby.

I also want to thank the CJS subcommittee Majority staff--Mike Ringler, Leslie Albright, Jeff Ashford, Diana Simpson and Colin Samples--as well as Bob Bonner and Matt Smith on the Minority staff.

The final CJS bill before the House today totals $51.6 billion, which is $1.4 billion below the enacted fiscal year 2013 level.

Since Republicans assumed the majority in the House, we have reduced spending by more than $12 billion for agencies funded in the CJS appropriations bill.

The FY 2013 level is even $200 million below the FY 2008 level.

At the same time the bill also provides funding for a variety of critical national priorities, and prevents furloughs for federal employees this year.

The bill includes $8.3 billion for the FBI to fight crime and protect the nation from further terrorist attacks and expands the FBI's capability to investigate and attribute cyber intrusions, which the new Director has identified as his biggest challenge.

In addition, there is $1 million for an independent review and report to Congress to be conducted by an outside commission to look at progress made over the last decade on the implementation the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission as well as to look at how the FBI is responding to the evolving threat of terrorism, including the threat from domestic radicalization.

I expect the FBI to support this important effort by ensuring that the review has the independence, flexibility and resources necessary to produce an excellent and unbiased report to the Congress.

The bill establishes the Charles Colson Task Force on Federal Corrections to develop practical, data-driven policy options to increase public safety, reduce recidivism, and control the growth of spending on corrections.

In the Department of Commerce, the bill includes funding for the National Weather Service to provide critical weather information to the public.

We need to enhance efforts to bring good jobs back to America, especially manufacturing jobs. This bill continues a job repatriation task force established last year, and includes grant funding to enable encourage repatriations. It also calls on the department to hold a national repatriation conference this year, and I appreciate Secretary Priztker's proactive leadership in coordinating this conference.

The bill includes important funding for fundamental scientific research. $7.2 billion is included for the NSF. NIST research activities receive $850 million, an increase of $42 million.

Finally, the bill includes $17.65 billion for NASA, including funding for America's next generation Space Launch System and the Orion Crew Vehicle as well as full funding for cutting edge aeronautics research to keep America competitive.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. I thank him for his leadership.

First of all, it is a pleasure to rise to support this bill, and let me specifically address the defense portion, which is, indeed, our primary constitutional responsibility, a strong national defense.

First I want to thank my ranking member, Pete Visclosky, for his help in crafting this bill. It was not an easy task, given the short deadlines, but I think we have produced a bipartisan product that meets our national defense needs.

I thank all the committee members and our professional staff for their hard work.

A few words about our allocation, which is a direct result of the decision we made in mid-December. The base allocation is $486.9 billion, which is $29 billion below the President's budget request and $25.7 billion below the bill we passed, the defense bill we passed in July.

The Overseas Contingency allocation is $85.2 billion, which is $4.5 billion above the request. Even with the small increase in the Overseas Contingency allocation, which we essentially use for buy-back readiness, the subcommittee's task was formidable. We cut $24.5 billion from the administration's budget request.

I want to assure my colleagues that not many programs were left untouched. We did our best to protect quantities of critical major weapons systems and avoid significant disruption to vital programs.

Importantly, we gave our military leaders much badly needed predictability about future expenditures and preserved jobs in our defense industrial base.

Most importantly too, we protected readiness. Our Constitution's first priority is to provide for a strong national defense so if the Commander in Chief needs to call our troops, they will be ready and prepared.

Madam Speaker, the measure before us clearly re-affirms our first obligation to provide for national defense under Article One, Section 8 of the Constitution.

I urge support for the Consolidated Appropriations Act and rise to address specifically the Defense portion that our primary constitutional obligation

First, I want to thank Pete Visclosky for his help in crafting this bill. It was not an easy task, given the short deadlines, but I think together we have produced a bi-partisan product that meets our national defense needs. I thank all Committee members and our professional staff for their hard work.

A few words about our allocation, which is a direct result of the Bipartisan Budget Act we passed in December.

The base allocation is $486.9 billion, which is $29 billion below the President's budget request and $25.7 billion below bill the House passed in July.

The Overseas Contingency allocation is $85.2 billion, which is $4.5 billion above the request.

Even with the small increase in OCO allocation, (which we used to essentially buy-back readiness) the Subcommittee's task was still formidable--cutting $24.5 billion from the Administration's budget request.

Our Committee, like others, recognizes that the Department of Defense needs to be part of the deficit solution!

We consulted with civilian and military leaders within the Department and the Intelligence community, who provided input and made some ``suggestions'' for reductions to help meet our allocation.

Let me outline just a few highlights:

$15.2 billion for 8 ships, including 2 Virginia-class submarines;

$5.1 billion for 29 Joint Strike Fighters, and $1.5 billion for their continued development;

$3 billion for 16 (P-8) Poseidon aircraft;

$1.9 billion for 21 (E/A-18) Growler electronic attack aircraft;

$1.4 billion for 17 of the latest variant of the C-130--an incredible workhorse;

$1.0 billion for the National Guard and Reserve Equipment Account--to support the citizen-soldiers who fight side-by-side with our active duty troops;

$3.0 billion reduction in Afghanistan Security Forces Funds;

The agreement also places restrictions on funds to Rosonboro-export, the Russian manufacturer of the Mi-17 helicopter;

In addition, the bill prohibits targeting a U.S. person under section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and bars the acquiring, monitoring, or storing of the electronic communications of a U.S. person from a public service provider under section 501 of FISA;

And finally, the bill amends the December Ryan-Murray Agreement to ensure that medically retired personnel and survivor benefit recipients do not have their cost-of-living benefits (temporarily) reduced-- guaranteeing disabled veterans and surviving families receive the full benefits they are due.

I assure my colleagues that not many programs were left untouched, but we did our best to protect quantities of critical major weapon systems and avoid significant disruptions to vital programs. Most importantly, we gave our military leaders badly-needed predictability about future expenditures and preserved jobs in our defense industrial base. And we protected readiness, our committee's first priority.

Some contingency-related requirements--which had moved from OCO to our base bill in previous years--were shifted back to OCO in an effort to protect readiness the Subcommittee's first priority--to allow our troops to execute missions wherever and whenever they are called upon by our Commander-in-Chief.

Mr. Chairman, our military and intelligence agencies badly need stability and predictability after years of budget uncertainty. This conference report provides that for at least a few years. At the same time, we preserve private sector jobs with a more reliable and dependable appropriations process.

Colleagues, this is a fiscally-conservative, bi-partisan measure that protects readiness and maintains our commitment to servicemembers and their families, while meeting the budget caps established in the Bipartisan Budget Act.

I urge its adoption, thank Mr. Visclosky and all members of the Subcommittee.