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.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 438 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

I would be happy to yield to my friend from Massachusetts.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

Well, I would say to my friend suggesting anyone is skipping town is also not a good answer.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Will the gentlelady yield?

I am sure that the gentlelady does not mean to suggest that there is meanness going on, I would ask the gentlelady.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messer).

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

No.

I am the final speaker on our side.

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.

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

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

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. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Committee on Rules.

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.)

I am sorry, Mr. Levin. All time has been allocated.

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.

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen). This is very important.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democrat leader, on this important issue.

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.

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.

May I please have my time. I didn't get to speak because he took it.

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. 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.

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. 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. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire if my colleague has further speakers? If not, I am prepared to close.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Will the gentleman yield on that?

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.

Will the gentleman yield for 30 seconds on that?

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.

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.''

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.