Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 59) making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2014, and for other purposes; providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules; providing for proceedings during the period from December 14, 2013, through January 6, 2014; and for other purposes.

Mr. 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, pursuant to House Resolution 438, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 59) making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2014, and for other purposes, with the House amendment to the Senate amendment thereto, and I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. 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 further consideration of House Joint Resolution 59.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

I rise on behalf of the bipartisan budget agreement. This is the first time since 1986 that a divided Congress has done what we are about to do.

Here is what the bill does:

It reduces the deficit by $23 billion; it does not raise taxes; and it cuts spending in a smarter way. We take temporary across-the-board cuts, and we replace them with targeted permanent reforms, and these reforms take place immediately.

First, we cut waste: for instance, we stop paying Medicaid bills that deadbeat dads ought to cover; we stop sending unemployment checks to criminals;

Second, we go after corporate welfare: we eliminate a government program for energy companies; we eliminate a special carveout in the student loan program;

Third, we start to address the real problem, and that is autopilot spending: we ask new Federal employees to contribute a little more to their retirements; we ask private companies to cover a little bit more of their own pension guarantees.

These savings build up over time, and this bill saves more than if we did nothing.

This bill isn't as far as I would like. It is not near the breadth and the scope of the budget that we passed earlier, but that is how it works in divided government. That is the nature of compromise. In a divided government, you don't get everything you want, but I think this bill is a firm step in the right direction. It is not perfect. It is a start. That is how it works in divided government. I also think, Mr. Speaker, it gives us the added benefit of preventing Washington's lurch from crisis to crisis. We are bringing stability to the budget process, and that stability will help build confidence, and that confidence will help our economy.

I will be the first to admit that we have a lot more work to do. I have been bringing budgets to this floor for 5 years that balance the budget, that pay off the debt, that reform our entitlement programs. That is what we want to do. That is what we are going to keep working on doing, but in this divided government, we are going to take the steps we can take, and this step, we think, is one in the right direction. We need to help strengthen the economy. We need to help create jobs and take-home pay.

The bottom line is: this first step is designed to help improve people's lives. It is designed to make this government work at a basic functioning level, and by passing this, we will reduce the deficit.

We came here to get something done. We always lock horns. We always argue. We never agree. I think it is about time, for once in a long time, we find common ground and agree. That is what this bill does, and that is what I ask my colleagues to consider, and I ask them to support this agreement.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Section 203 restricts access to the Death Master File, DMF, which is a list of deceased individuals maintained by the Social Security Administration.

This provision charges the Secretary of Commerce with establishing a program to restrict access to the information contained on the DMF for a three-year period beginning on the date of an individual's death, except to persons who are certified under the program. Under the program, persons certified by the

Secretary of Commerce to have a fraud prevention interest or other legitimate need for the information and agree to maintain the information under significant safeguards may continue to access DMF information on a current basis. The provision also provides for penalties in cases of unauthorized disclosures or uses of DMF information by certified persons. Finally, the provision also brings the DMF within the scope of the exemptions available under the Freedom of Information Act to ensure that Federal agencies do not disclose the information about deceased individuals maintained by SSA or contained in the DMF, except to recipients who are certified persons.

In implementing this section, the Department of Commerce should promulgate regulations establishing and providing guidelines for the certification program and provide sufficient time for legitimate current users of DMF information to comment on the regulations, especially as it relates to the timing of the effectiveness of this Section and as it relates to the authority to release the Death Master File to the public.

Section-by-Section Analysis

Section 1. Short title and table of contents.

Subsection 1(a) provides that the short title of this Act

is ``Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013''.

Subsection 1(b) sets forth the table of contents for the

Act.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 4 minutes to the

gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, just so that my colleagues understand what exactly this bill does or does not do, I want to walk you through a chart.

In 2011, Congress passed the Budget Control Act. That set discretionary spending at this level up here, the blue line. It said that this thing we commonly call the supercommittee was supposed to go and cut $1.2 trillion out of mandatory spending, autopilot spending, the nondiscretionary part of the budget, the big, fast growing part that Congress rarely addresses.

If it didn't happen, then the sequester would kick in. That is this red line. That is where we are now because the sequester has kicked in.

What we face in January is another round of sequester cuts, $20 billion, that hit solely on defense spending in the military. A lot of us are concerned about that. When 85 percent of our troops, our brigades, are not ready, that is a problem. When we have people in Afghanistan and we need to reset our equipment and we are not where we need to be, that is a problem; that is a concern of ours.

What we do not want to do is lose any of the fiscal progress that was made by this act. In fact, we want to go farther. So what this bill does is it says for the rest of this half fiscal year, fiscal year 2014, and the upcoming fiscal year, fiscal year 2015, it changes discretionary spending to go to $1.12 trillion and then $1.14 trillion back on to where we are with the sequester.

What does all that mean? It means that 92 percent of the sequester is still intact. For the next year and a half, this bill preserves 70 percent of the sequester; but we pay for that 30 percent that is given back.

Let me explain what that means just in a quick dollars and cents sense. This bill achieves $85 billion in mandatory savings, the things we talked about a minute ago, all those various permanent spending cuts. It gives back or relieves from the sequester $63 billion in spending: half to defense, half to domestic spending, like Mr. Van Hollen was talking about. The result is a net deficit reduction of $23 billion. So from the Budget Control Act of 2011, this advances fiscal responsibility to the tune of $23 billion.

To put it another way, 2 years ago, when we passed the first House Republican budget when we came into the majority, the appropriation number we were looking for then was $1.19 trillion. Then in 2012 in the next House Republican budget, the appropriation bill we were fighting for then was $1.28 trillion.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional minute.

The Budget Control Act would have had us at $1.58 trillion. This agreement puts us at $1.12 trillion. Under this agreement, we would not hit that discretionary spending number of $1.19

trillion, the one we asked for 2 years ago, we wouldn't hit that number until the year 2017.

With respect to a fiscal track record, we are ahead of schedule, and we are replacing some of these across-the-board spending cuts that are indiscriminate that don't set priorities, that treat the efficient and inefficient programs the same, with smarter, permanent spending cuts in the autopilot part of spending, that part that Congress all too often ignores.

Mr. Speaker, this is good government; it is also divided government. Under divided government, we need to take steps in the right direction. To make divided government work, you can't ask each other to compromise a core principle because we don't do that here. We ask each other to find some common ground to advance the common good. That is what this agreement does. That is why I ask my colleagues to support it.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham) for the purposes of a colloquy.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman from Iowa yield?

Mr. Speaker, yes, it is the legislative intent that existing contracts to use the services for not-for-profit servicers are not terminated by this bill and that they will be permitted to compete with the Department of Education's title IV servicers for additional accounts.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to my friend, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn). I want him to know that his time spent on these prior endeavors, the Biden Group, all those, that was not wasted. That was productive time because the findings of those groups were used in this agreement. The work that they did on all of those policies were work that we borrowed from to put this together. So I want him to know that was a productive use of his time which helped, in turn, produce this result.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), our distinguished majority whip.

Will the gentleman yield?

We are having a good moment here. Don't spoil it, all right?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of other factors that I think Members should weigh as we look at this legislation.

Number one is if we do not pass this legislation, we face a fiscal impasse on January 15 and, therefore, a potential government shutdown at that time. And then we face a fiscal impasse at the end of September and a possible government shutdown at that time. I don't know of anyone in this body that thinks these government shutdowns are productive or useful for our economy. So by having this agreement in place, we prevent those two episodes from occurring and we prevent those two government shutdowns.

Point number two, for too long, for 3 years, this body, Congress, the legislative branch, the one that the Founders envisioned in the Constitution would be exercising the power of the purse, the branch of government that is the representative of the people that is supposed to decide how money is spent, well, we have been ceding that authority to the executive branch by passing what we call continuing resolutions. So the spending priorities that were set 3 years ago are still in place, and then we just keep writing these blank checks to the administration, and they set the priorities. That is not a partisan thing; this is an institutional thing. This is a separation of powers thing.

Democrats and Republicans alike believe that we should do our jobs, that we should exercise the power of the purse, that the legislative branch should bring back its authority to do this. This does that. By restarting the appropriations process, by agreeing to these numbers, which are bipartisan numbers, mutually agreed to number, by not doing continuing resolutions,

we are reclaiming the power of the purse.

I yield myself 1 minute.

There are those of us who are worried about regulations, who are worried about the exercise of power at the executive branch, who are worried about a sense of less accountability among the executive branch. We do lots of oversight hearings. We do dozens a week. But oversight pales in comparison when it doesn't have any fiscal force behind it. By reclaiming the power of the purse, by having Congress write the budgets and approve and decide the budgets of the executive agencies, that gives us a far stronger hand in effecting effective oversight and conducting oversight. By using the power of the purse, along with effective oversight, we can do our jobs as the legislative branch in conducting oversight of the executive branch and setting priorities.

My friends have their priorities, and we have our priorities, and sometimes we meet and sometimes we don't. At least Congress gets to set the priorities on how the money sent to us from hardworking taxpayers is spent. That is one of the things that is accomplished in this agreement. That, along with all these other reasons, is why I really encourage all of our Members to support this agreement.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time. I am waiting for the leader, who is on his way.

At this time, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Rokita), a member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), our distinguished majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the distinguished Speaker of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Womack).

Mr. Speaker, I have no more speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time to close.

I will defer to the Speaker's comments.

Yes.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are many reasons why I encourage my colleagues to support this bipartisan budget agreement. Number one, by doing this, we reduce the deficit by $23 billion. If we don't do this, we don't reduce the deficit by $23 billion. That means we are reducing it versus doing nothing, a step in the right direction, a move toward fiscal responsibility, not near as far as we want to go, but at least going in the direction we want to go.

The budget we passed here in the House, just like the prior two budgets that we passed here in the House, represents the full extent of our ambition, our vision and our goals. It balances the budgets within 10 years.

It reforms the Tax Code without raising taxes. It reforms our entitlement programs that were vital and were made in the 20th century so that they work for the 21st century.

It pays off our debt so that we do not leave our children a Nation of debt. That is our goal. That is our vision. That is our destiny.

With the bipartisan budget agreement we couldn't accomplish that because we have different opinions, we have different objectives. That is why we worked for common ground.

That is why we took our budget, all the different budgets that were offered, we laid them on top of each other, and we looked for common ground. We went through the Federal budget program by program, line by line. We discussed and debated these things, and we asked where is it that we can agree needs reforming.

Where is it that we agree taxpayer money is being wasted?

Where is it we agree that cronyism and corporate welfare should go away?

Where is it we agree that some reform for auto pilot mandatory spending ought to occur?

And where we found that agreement, we put it in this agreement. That is the way it is supposed to work. So we see this as a step in the right direction on the way toward fulfilling our ultimate goal.

The second thing we accomplished that is very important to us, and Mr. Van Hollen kind of mentioned it, this does not raise taxes. Hardworking taxpayers have worked hard and long enough that we need to work on spending instead of taking more from them.

The third thing, we are taking permanent spending cuts to pay for temporary sequester relief. We think that is a good idea.

The savings clearly take time to accrue in this agreement, and that is because we are changing permanent law, and those permanent law changes that are made by this act start accruing and compounding that savings so that the savings keep growing and compounding on and on and on.

The funny thing about auto pilot spending, about what we call mandatory spending, is it compounds away from you and spends so much more. But if you get reforms, if you get savings, those savings compound as well. This does that: permanent spending cuts to pay for some temporary sequester relief.

Now, what is the sequester?

It is across the board, it is crude, it doesn't prioritize, it doesn't give Congress any say-so on how money is being spent. That is a third thing that this does that I think is pretty good.

In addition to keeping 92 percent of the sequester intact, what this bill does is it says Congress ought to decide how money is being spent, not the administration.

So, instead of deferring and delegating our power to the executive branch with continuing resolution after continuing resolution, we, Republicans and Democrats, the legislative branch, are bringing that power back to Congress so that the people's House, so that the legislature, as the Founders and the Constitution intended, we decide how that money is being spent. We decide how to prioritize spending. That is our job.

I also like the precedent that this sets. We know we are always going to have fiscal pressure because the sequester, as they mentioned, has not been lifted. It is still here, so it is always going to produce pressure. And I like the precedent that we are starting here.

The precedent that we are starting here is we are not going back to the taxpayer. We are not going to ask more from hardworking taxpayers. We are going to ask the government to do with less.

And as we transfer permanent spending cuts for temporary relief, we are going to have more spending cuts than we give back in relief, so we reduce the deficit further; $85 billion in mandatory savings to pay for $63 billion in sequester relief. That is a pretty good precedent.

I would like to add one or two more zeroes at the end of these numbers, but I will take the direction we have right now.

The other point is this: we have been at each other's throats for a long time. Look, I was part of the last Presidential election. We tried defeating this President. I wish we would have.

Elections have consequences, Mr. Speaker. And I fundamentally believe--this is just my personal opinion; I know it's a slightly partisan thing to say--to really do what we think needs to be done, we are going to have to win some elections. And in the meantime, let's try and make this divided government work.

I think our constituents are expecting a little more from us. They are expecting us to not keep shutting the

government down. They are expecting us to pay the bills. They are expecting us to be accountable. They are expecting us to watch how their dollars are being spent, and they are expecting us to find common ground; and that is what this does.

That is why I urge all of my colleagues to support this.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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.

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

I would like to start by commending my friend and colleague, Chairman Ryan, for working on this bipartisan agreement. I also want to congratulate our Senate colleague, Senator Patty Murray, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, for her efforts to get this done, along with many of our colleagues.

This agreement is far from perfect. It is not the budget agreement I or many of my colleagues would have written, but I do believe that, on balance, at the margin, it represents a small but positive step forward.

Mr. Speaker, I would not have been able to say that as recently as this past Monday and early Tuesday, but as a result of changes made, I think this is a positive step forward; and I want to commend my fellow conferees on the House side--Mr. Clyburn and Mrs. Lowey--as well as the efforts of Leader Pelosi, to make the changes necessary.

As a result of those changes, this is an agreement that many of our colleagues can now support, and that is for many reasons; but most of all, it results in a situation in which we will avoid the very deep and harmful cuts from the sequester, which, if this Congress does not act, will automatically take effect a few weeks from now. Those very deep and unproductive across-the-board cuts will create an unnecessary drag on the economy at a time when economic growth is building but still not nearly where it is. It will have a negative impact on job growth, and it will eat away at important national priorities and investments.

As a result of this agreement, in fiscal year 2014, we will be able to invest $25 billion more in vital national areas than we were in fiscal year 2013. Of those $25 billion investments, $22.5 billion will be in important areas of domestic investment: in areas of education, in areas of important scientific research like medical research at the National Institutes of Health. It will also provide, as Chairman Ryan has said, some certainty, which is very important at this point in time; and without this agreement, you would be guaranteed additional furloughs of Federal employees in the coming year, so I think it is a positive step forward.

I do, Mr. Speaker, want to express my extreme disappointment in one area. In the agreement, itself, as Chairman Ryan has acknowledged and as Senator Murray has recognized, we decided not to include what we call the doc fix and decided we would not include the unemployment insurance compensation extension. Many of us argued that we should include both of those in this agreement. In fact, House Democrats proposed an agreement along those lines. We believe that, if we are going to do the doc fix, which we think is important--making sure that doctors who provide services to Medicare patients are fully compensated--we should also make sure that individuals who are on long- term unemployment will not be left out in the cold 3 days after Christmas. It was decided that those elements would not be in the agreement, itself.

Yet, last night, at the 11th hour, the House Republican majority decided to insert the doc fix within this agreement. We support that doc fix, but we are very troubled that we have not even been allowed a vote to extend unemployment compensation.

The reality, Mr. Speaker, is, even without that, if we leave here without this agreement, we are not going to get the extension of unemployment insurance because the Speaker won't allow us to have a vote on that, so the only thing we would accomplish by defeating this budget agreement would be to go home with a lot of uncertainty and with the sequester guaranteed to hit in January. That is not a good result. This agreement is a better result. I will talk a little bit later about what we believe we should be doing in this Congress.

As the chairman said, this agreement doesn't match his vision nor does it match ours. We put forward a proposal that would focus a lot more on job creation, to try and invest more in our national infrastructure--in our roads and in our bridges and in our broadband-- so that we can put people back to work right now and accomplish important national priorities. We believe we should be focusing on early education, investing more in our future so we have job growth not only now from additional investments but so we ensure greater job growth in the future. There are other things that we think were important and part of this agreement which are not in here but that we will continue to fight for in the days ahead.

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

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Maryland (Ms. Edwards), my colleague and friend on the Transportation Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

I think this agreement is an acknowledgement--at least a majority on both sides, certainly on the Democratic side, a strong majority--that the sequester is a dumb and unproductive way to cut spending or to reduce the deficit.

What this agreement does is prevent that full sequester from taking place over the next 2 years. We believe that we should address and substitute the remaining sequester through a balanced approach of additional targeted cuts. But, Mr. Speaker, we also think we should close some of these special interest tax loopholes that benefit nobody except certain narrow interests that sometimes have undue sway here in the Congress.

But as my colleague said, we have different approaches, and our Republican colleagues have refused to close a single one of those special tax breaks or preferences for the purpose either of reducing the sequester or reducing the deficit. So we have different approaches. We wouldn't have chosen the offsets that are in here to pay for the sequester replacement. They are the result of a negotiation. As I said earlier, I believe on balance this is an important step forward.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), one of the people who was very important in this process, my good friend and colleague from New York, the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee and one of the conferees.

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlelady.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), a good friend and colleague, one of the conferees who worked with us to move this agreement to a place where it was supported by many of us on the Democratic side, the assistant Democratic leader.

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), a terrific member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison), my friend.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis), a great member of the Armed Services Committee.

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

I want to emphasize a point that we both made, which is that if we had our druthers, we would have approached this issue differently.

I do want to say with respect to some of the offsets, there are many of us who would have preferred to see the closures of many special interest tax breaks as part of the offsets in this legislation. We hope that as we go forward, we would agree that that is also a kind of wasteful spending in the Tax Code. If you give a special interest in this country some tax preference not enjoyed by others, you are simply raising the burden on everybody else. It is simply a form of spending through the Tax Code.

Mr. Speaker, as we address these issues going forward, whether it is replacing the sequester or reducing the deficit, as part of a balanced approach, we think we should take those into account as well.

We also proposed, as part of this measure, applying some of the excessive subsidies that we give to agribusinesses as part of the offsets, and our colleagues rejected those.

As has been said, this is a product of compromise, but I do want to let people know that it has been our preference to close some of those special interest tax breaks and use some of those excessive agriculture subsidies as offsets here rather than some of the provisions that are before us.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our distinguished whip and somebody who has been working very hard on these budget issues and working with us also to make sure that this is done in as fair and equitable a manner as possible. He has worked with us very closely to make sure that Federal employees do not take a disproportionate share of the burden. And as a result of those efforts, current Federal employees will not be asked to bear additional burdens after having already borne so much of the burden.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman another minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a great member of the Judiciary Committee.

Is the gentleman prepared to close?

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

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Hoyer is right. This agreement does not address the comprehensive issues that we need to address. We need to address those in a balanced way, and that means working on both additional, smart, targeted spending cuts, but also closing special interest tax breaks.

But what this agreement does do is make sure that, in the next several weeks, we do not move to a full sequester, very deep across- the-board cuts, which will hurt the economy. Instead, it provides more room to invest in vital areas like education and research. That is a positive note. That is a positive bipartisan note.

I do want to say, Mr. Speaker, however, and this is not as a result of anything the chairman of the Budget Committee does, there is also a sour note in leaving here without having addressed the unemployment insurance.

This agreement didn't include the doc-fix, and it didn't include unemployment insurance. We should be dealing with both those issues together. We are only dealing with one of them now.

So I hope, as we go forward, we will address those issues; and we should not leave town until we address the unemployment issue.

But let's, at the same time, take this small positive step forward.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

First of all, let me say that America is advantaged by having two people who work on the Budget Committee who have great intellect, great integrity, and care about America: Mr. Ryan from Wisconsin and Mr. Van Hollen from Maryland. The American public sometimes is not sure that it has that kind of quality. If only they were here sitting in the Budget Committee or on the floor and listening to these two gentlemen who have disagreements and represent their positions well.

Mr. Speaker, I voted for every budget compromise that has been passed over the past 3 years without fail. The result, however, invariably, has been an unremitting undermining of our efforts to reach a balanced fiscal policy and to invest in that which will secure our future: the economy, education, infrastructure, national security, and innovation.

While each of those bills was preferable to default on our debt or the shutting down of our government, they have been simply stopgap measures that have not prevented continuing lurches from congressionally created and all too frequent fiscal crises and shutdowns.

The headlines regarding this agreement put it in perspective. An op- ed in The New York Times says, ``Congress Avoids Reality, Again.'' The Wall Street Journal says, ``A Least Bad Budget Deal,'' while a USA Today headline says, ``Minimalist Budget Deal Beats Another Shutdown.'' The editorial concludes with this, however:

Unless we come to grips with the fiscal issue, we will be inflicting a huge financial burden on our children.

I agree.

The deal before us today does not deal with the fundamental issue of long-term fiscal stability. My friend Mr. Ryan says he wants to do that. My friend Mr. Van Hollen says he wants to do that. I think Senator Murray wants to do that. We have not done that. We have not dealt with the underlying issues that prevent us from being on a fiscally sustainable path.

It does not replace the full sequester, which Chairman Hal Rogers, who I know has spoken in favor of this agreement, has correctly described as ill-advised and unrealistic. I said on this floor when we considered the gentleman's budget that, if there were no Democrats in the House of Representatives, they could not implement that budget. I believe that.

I believe that. I believe it because the figures were not related to priorities or vision or that which we needed to accomplish as a country, but on a number, 967. That is an opinion shared by all of the Republican appropriations subcommittee chairmen who wrote a letter to that effect.

Nor, critically, does this agreement deal with the issue of the debt limit, which will confront us shortly, and which has, historically, over the last 3 years, been an inflection point to further reduce not only discretionary spending on both sides, mainly on the nondefense side, but also to reach, once again, into the pockets of Federal employees.

Now, I am someone who represents 62,000 Federal employees, and I recommended zero COLAs the first 2 years we did zero COLAs. Why?

The economy was in trouble and it was necessary for Federal employees, like everybody else, to participate.

I'd better be quick.

If we fail to resolve this issue now, it will simply plunge us into another manufactured crisis which will quickly undermine the stability and confidence that some believe this agreement is bringing.

The fact that this agreement deals temporarily with preventing a cut in Medicare's physician reimbursement rate is welcome but, as with our fiscal sustainability, it needs to be dealt with on a permanent basis.

I am pleased that the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee today marked up legislation to do so. However, it is unconscionable that the budget deal before us today does not extend unemployment insurance, which helps those who are most at risk in our society; and if we do not help them, the economy will suffer, and 200,000 jobs are predicted to be lost.

On December 28, 1.3 million Americans will lose their unemployment insurance if we do not act, and they will be joined by an additional 3.5 million Americans in 2014. The House should not leave town without ensuring that individuals looking for work have the safety net of unemployment insurance.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, this budget turns once again to middle class workers.

Let me close with this. This agreement is better than the alternative, but it misses a huge opportunity to do what the American people expect us to do, and that is put this country on a fiscally sustainable path.

I would urge my friend from Wisconsin, and I have urged my friend from Maryland, my colleague, summon up the courage, much of which you have already shown, to help us put this country on a fiscally sustainable path, and, yes, make tough decisions. And I will join with the gentleman from Wisconsin and the gentleman from Maryland in helping us to get the votes for those tough decisions that are necessary, but it needs to be a balanced deal.

I have voted for every budget compromise that has been passed over the past three years.

The results, invariably, have been an unremitting undermining of our efforts to reach a balanced fiscal policy and to invest in that which will secure our future: the economy, education, infrastructure, national security, and innovation.

And while each of those bills was preferable to default on our debt or the shutting down of our government, they have been simply stop-gap measures that have not prevented continuing lurches from congressionally-created and all-too-frequent fiscal crises and shutdowns.

The headlines regarding this deal put it in perspective:

An op-ed in the New York Times says, ``Congress avoids reality again.''

The Wall Street Journal calls it the ``Least Bad Budget Deal.''

And while a USA Today headline says, ``Minimalist Budget Deal Beats Another Shutdown,'' the editorial concludes with this: ``Unless we come to grips with the fiscal issue, we will be inflicting a huge financial burden on our children.''

I could not agree more.

The deal before us today does not deal with the fundamental issue of long-term fiscal stability, nor does it replace the full sequester-- which Chairman Hal Rogers has correctly described as ``ill-advised'' and ``unrealistic''--an opinion shared by all of the Republican Appropriations Subcommittee chairmen.

Nor, critically, does this agreement deal with the issue of the debt limit, which will confront us in a few short months.

If we fail to resolve that now, it will simply plunge us into another manufactured crisis, which will quickly undermine the stability and confidence some believe this agreement will bring.

The fact that this agreement deals temporarily with preventing a cut in Medicare's physician reimbursement rates, SGR, is welcome, but, as with our fiscal sustainability, it needs to be dealt with on a permanent basis.

I'm pleased that the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee today marked up legislation to address this issue in a permanent way.

However, it is unconscionable that the budget deal before us today does not extend unemployment insurance, which helps those most at risk in our society.

On December 28, 1.3 million Americans will lose their unemployment insurance if we do not act, and they will be joined by an additional 3.5 million Americans in 2014.

The house should not leave town without ensuring that individuals looking for work have the safety net of unemployment insurance.

Finally, I am disappointed that this budget deal turns once again to middle class workers.

Our nation's Federal Employees have already contributed $114 billion toward deficit reduction, and are being asked to contribute once again.

Their contribution is less than what was being discussed last week, which is positive, but to continue targeting them is unacceptable outside of a big deal where everyone else is asked to contribute as well.

This budget deal is a missed opportunity.

It is a missed opportunity to replace the sequester in its entirety.

It is a missed opportunity to, at long last, put our Nation on a fiscally sustainable path.

That is why I will oppose this deal on the floor today, and continue advocating for the big, balanced budget deal we need to truly restore the long-term fiscal stability of our Nation.