Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway) for the purpose of inquiring of the schedule for the week to come.

I thank the gentleman for the information he has given to us.

Let me say that on Ukraine, I think the House acted properly. It acted in a timely fashion to express the views of this House with respect to the Russian violation of international law and the agreements that they have with Ukraine, and I am pleased we were able to join together to pass that through the House. Hopefully the Senate will pass it quickly.

I just make the observation that the Senate I know believes that the reform of IMF will be important to work with that extension. We will see what happens on that. I thank the gentleman and his side of the aisle for acting promptly. We were pleased to join in that action.

Let me ask the gentleman, the gentleman mentioned as we know that by March 31 the authorization for the sustainable growth rate payment will expire and the payment to physicians for Medicare services will be substantially reduced under present law. There is, I think, a strong feeling by many of us that this needs to be fixed. It needs to be fixed permanently, and it needs to be paid for.

It is my understanding that the bill H.R. 4015, a bipartisan agreement on the SGR payment policy, as the gentleman knows, does not have a pay-for in it. Is it my understanding that that will be amended before it is brought to the floor, or will there be an amendment on the floor to add the pay-for?

I yield to the gentleman

I thank the gentleman. Let me clarify, Mr. Speaker, this will be under a rule and there will be an amendment made in order to add the pay-for; is that correct?

So before it comes to the floor, it will be paid for.

I ask the gentleman, it is my understanding that the pay-for, I don't know if I am accurate on this, but my understanding is that the pay-for is the repeal of the individual mandate. If so, can the gentleman tell me whether he has any indication that the Senate would be in agreement on that, and I say that because obviously there hasn't been agreement in the past, and if we use that as a pay-for, it seems to me it puts at risk meeting the March 31 deadline.

I thank the gentleman, and I would say I am hopeful in light of the fact that the bill itself is a bipartisan, or at least the two committees have agreed on it, and I think there is general agreement on the fix for the SGR, but the pay-fors have been contentious. I would hope that, as the bill has been a product of agreement, that the pay-for, which is essential, would also be a product of that. I would hope we would see a bill come to the floor that does have agreement of both sides of the aisle so we can, as the gentleman points out and we fully agree, ensure that the SGR is fixed and put on a sustainable path for our Medicare and for the provider community prior to March 31. I would hope that could happen.

Next, I don't know whether the gentleman has watched colloquies in the past, but the majority leader and I have had an ongoing discussion about immigration reform. Both of us believe

the immigration system is broken. Both of us believe it needs to be fixed. Can the gentleman tell me whether there is any likelihood of an immigration bill coming to the floor anytime soon? Again, we have a relatively short period of time left to go, and we believe this legislation is one of the most important pieces that are pending on the agenda, and I would be, as I told the majority leader, very inclined to try to work with the majority on behalf of the minority, and I know the minority would like to get an immigration reform bill that we can both agree on passed as soon as possible.

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman. I hope if it is not next week, it will be soon. I thank the gentleman for his information.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come, and I yield to my friend, the majority leader, Mr. Cantor.

I thank the gentleman for the information he has given to me.

I want to comment on one of the statements he made, with which I agree, in which, Mr. Speaker, you just told us--again, I agree--America doesn't work if middle class families are taking home less. I would urge him, consistent with that statement, in recognition of the fact that America works better when working families are making better wages, that we would hope the minimum wage could be brought to the floor.

As the gentleman I am sure knows, in 2013 dollars, the minimum wage would now be $10.57 if it were at the same level it was over 40 years ago in 1968. The minimum wage has eroded very substantially in its purchasing power and its ability to give middle class families, as you say, and America a decent take-home pay. We believe both the minimum wage and unemployment insurance extension for the 1.8 to 2 million people who have lost that safety net is both hurting the economy and obviously hurting families. So we agree very strongly with the gentleman's statement.

Obviously, the bills he refers to he believes will also have an effect on this issue, but I would hope that you would seriously consider bringing the minimum wage and unemployment insurance to the floor. We believe--although, frankly, I don't have a precise count on your side of the aisle, which I am sure does not shock you--that both of those bills would have the votes on this floor, as the Speaker has indicated, to work its will and to pass those pieces of legislation. So I would hope the gentleman would consider that.

Secondly, Mr. Leader, we are pleased that flood insurance is moving ahead, we hope, and we want to thank you for your efforts that you have made on behalf of this. I know that Ms. Waters from the Financial Services Committee has been working very hard on our side. We very much want to see the relief extended to those who have been confronted with these extraordinary increases in premiums which are unsustainable, particularly for middle class families, but for almost everybody; and we appreciate the work that you have done with Ms. Waters to try to make sure that the protections that are extended are sufficient, certainly in the short term, but hopefully also in the long term, to meet both the objective of making it sustainable for families, but also, over the long term, fiscally sustainable for the Nation.

So I want to thank you for that. We look forward to considering that next week and hope that will be on the floor next week.

If the gentleman wants to comment further, I yield to him.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Let me say to him that I will ask my staff--and they usually do what I ask them to do--next week to sit down with your staff and to talk about the SKILLS Act. We have significant differences. It was passed on a largely partisan vote, as the gentleman knows, but I agree with him. As you know, I have an agenda that we call Make It In America, and it deals with skills, and it deals with a 21st century workforce education, and so the objective we agree upon. I will certainly look forward to working with him on the specifics to see if we can get an agreement, a consensus, so that we can pass a bill which accomplishes those objectives, because we share those objectives.

Let me say, Mr. Speaker, it is interesting, I talk about the minimum wage. The majority leader answers, Mr. Speaker, that yes, the value of wages has decreased, but if we increased the Affordable Care Act to a 40-hour criteria, and less than that, 39 hours, no health care would necessarily be available to those workers, but you would increase their salary by 25 percent. Now on that theory, Mr. Speaker, perhaps if we increased the work to 80 hours a week, we would double their pay. Or perhaps we could triple their pay if you increased it to 120 hours a week. But, very frankly, it has eroded. The minimum wage is not worth what it was, and, very frankly, in 1969, the economy was not going bust. We weren't hemorrhaging jobs. We were doing pretty well.

Very frankly, CBO has said that some 25 million Americans, some directly and some indirectly, would be advantaged by increasing the minimum wage and paying a wage that did not leave a worker in the richest country on the face of the Earth in poverty working 40 hours a week. That is not an acceptable alternative in America, and we have raised the minimum wage periodically. We raised it last, of course, when Democrats were in charge in 2007. We raised it to $7.25 over time, now $7.25, but it is substantially less and it replaces 36 percent of average wage, as opposed to in 1968, replacing 54 percent of average wage.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that yes, we can take other steps that the majority leader has pointed out that I think we perhaps can reach agreement on, but that we ought to recognize that we expect people who can and are able to do so work in America, but they also expect us to pay them a wage on which they can have some degree of financial ability to support themselves, a family, and to live decently in America. So I would hope that we could do that.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, let me discuss a bill that we believe will help the economy greatly. The Chamber of Commerce believes it will help the economy greatly. Farm owners believe it will help the economy, and it is the broadest coalition that I have seen in the country on an issue in many respects: evangelicals, Roman Catholics, Jews, other faiths, all have said, 70-plus percent of America says we ought to pass comprehensive immigration reform.

Mr. Speaker, Speaker Boehner came forward with some principles in my State just a few weeks ago for moving forward on comprehensive immigration reform. We were very positively impressed with those principles. We may not have agreed on every jot and tittle of the suggestions, but we thought it was a very good basis to move forward on which to have a discussion and bring comprehensive immigration reform to the floor.

As Tom Donohue, the president of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, said it was absolutely essential, I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that we could bring that to the floor, have a debate and have consideration of it. My view is it has the votes in the people's House to pass if it were brought to the floor. I would hope that could be done.

With that, I yield to my friend, the majority leader.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, frankly, I have heard this trust argument before. That would be an argument for not doing anything because you don't trust the administration to execute the laws and, therefore, don't pass any laws. I think that is a make-wait argument, Mr. Speaker. And, very frankly, there is a way to see who is right on this, I tell my friend, the majority leader. The majority leader says he doesn't believe that it has the votes on the floor. There is a wonderful way to test that-- bring it to the floor, and we will see who is right.

The American people, over 70 percent of them, believe that we ought to pass comprehensive immigration reform. Polls on their side of the aisle and polls on our side of the aisle and independent polls largely agree: over 7 out of 10 Americans believe we ought to pass this bill. In fact, seven, or very close to 7 out of 10 of their representatives in the other body voted for comprehensive immigration reform. They had a vote. They brought it to the floor. It passed overwhelmingly. It has sat here for months, unattended, but maybe that is our alternative.

Very frankly, there have been alternatives passed out of the Judiciary Committee and out of the Homeland Security Committee by the Republicans, and they are not on the floor either, Mr. Speaker. So no immigration alternatives have been offered for a vote on this floor, the people's House, a

House in which the Speaker said when he took the gavel here, the people's will will be reflected because they would bring things to the floor. They accused us of not doing that. That was their right to do so, but now I suggest they are following a policy that they have severely criticized and said was wrong. So if they were sincere then, we would simply ask the majority leader to bring the bill to the floor and see if he is right or if I am right; to see whether we have the votes or we don't. The American people deserve that vote because they are overwhelmingly for that vote, and then they can take their own view from there as to who they agree with and who they don't agree with.

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from New York, the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, for his taking the time here to discuss two critical problems that confront us, first of all, the crisis that is ongoing in Ukraine and the negotiations that are currently underway with Iran.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today, mindful of the words of President Kennedy, who urged us never to negotiate out of fear, but never to fear to negotiate. While rooted deeply in the cold war's tense climate, where nuclear war loomed over us all like a Sword of Damocles, his admonition is as relevant today as it was then.

Today, we face a starkly different world, a world in which the chief threat to democracy, freedom, and prosperity is not a rival state superpower, but a complex and dangerous nexus of terrorism, instability, and autocracy.

America has not shied away from the challenges this new reality presents. We have taken the fight once against terrorism to al Qaeda and its allies wherever they hide, and we have continued to promote peace, democracy, and individual freedom. And together with our allies in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, we have worked carefully and with determination to confront one of the most dangerous threats to global security and stability in our day: the prospects of a nuclear-armed Iran.

The extremist regime in Tehran is at the heart of the instability that is undermining America's interests across the region. Those interests are the safety of our troops stationed in the region, regional stability and prosperity, the prevention of an arms race that could spiral out of control, ensuring that weapons of mass destruction do not end up in terrorists' hands, the protection of trade routes and resources that fuel economies across the world, and safeguarding our ally, Israel.

Iran continues to be the leading state sponsor of terrorism directed against America and our allies, supporting

Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon. As Syria's civil war has grown more deadly, Iran remains a primary backer of Syria's dictator, Hafez al-Assad, who has gassed his own people and continues to target civilians.

Secretary Kerry said just last week that Iran, along with Russia, has actively been working to subvert the negotiations aimed at ending the bloodshed in Syria and moving the country toward a peaceful transition of power. And Iran's leaders continue to vilify Israel and its people, calling for the annihilation of the Jewish state, something Israel, America, and the world will never tolerate.

Let it be absolutely clear, Mr. Speaker: the United States will always stand by Israel. And let it be even clearer to Iran and to the world: America and its allies will never accept a nuclear-armed Iran. A nuclear weapon would give Iran the ability to carry out its threats against Israel. It would destabilize the Middle East, and it would put American troops and our European allies at risk of catastrophic attack. That is why, Mr. Speaker, President Obama and Congress have worked together to enact the toughest sanctions regime in history and bring our allies together to enforce those sanctions.

The employment of sanctions to compel Iran's compliance with international norms has been a bipartisan goal going back several Congresses and several administrations, Republican and Democratic. That is because America's policy with regard to Iran, as President Obama has forcefully and repeatedly emphasized, is not containment but prevention. We have made it clear to Ayatollah Khamenei--and those who conspire with him to spread terror and use it as an instrument of statecraft--that we will use every necessary asset at our disposal to deny Iran a nuclear weapon.

While the military option remains on the table--as President Obama and Secretary Kerry have made it absolutely clear--we now have an opportunity to achieve our goals without resorting to the force of arms. That is the most desirable alternative. It is our duty and obligation to seize that opportunity.

America is great, Mr. Speaker, not only because of our military might, but because of our moral might, our unwavering commitment to the power of human freedom and dignity that overcame communism and will overcome the terror and tyranny facing the world today.

Kennedy was right, Mr. Speaker. We must never negotiate out of fear. And we are not. But neither should we fear to negotiate. And we are. And our objective is clear. The Iranian regime did not resume negotiations last year because it somehow had a change of heart. Iran altered its approach because the sanctions passed by Congress, enforced by the administration, and supported by our allies are having a profound effect on the Iranian economy, and, of course, because the Iranian people, in electing President Rouhani, signaled a desire to stop the confrontation with the West, which was undermining their economic well-being.

The Joint Plan of Action that was signed in November of last year is a result of those sanctions and that election. But the authors of the policies pursued by Iran over the last four decades, the mullahs, remain. Iran agreed to the Joint Plan of Action not because it wanted to give up its nuclear ambitions, as they have said, but because it concluded that its national interests were better served by temporarily halting its progress towards a nuclear weapons capability in return for sanctions relief.

But that interim agreement is only a first step. It makes important progress, but it does not provide the comprehensive, long-term assurance we need that Iran has abandoned and will not again pursue its goal of a nuclear weapon. Only a comprehensive, verifiable agreement that prevents Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon will meet our and our allies' international security objectives.

Given Iran's history of deception and denial, any agreement must include reliable, independent, intrusive, and unfettered verification that Iran is abiding by its commitments and that such a verification regime remains permanently in place. Mr. Speaker, Ronald Reagan's admonition ``to verify'' is doubly essential in light of there being no basis ``to trust'' and that the consequences of breach are too catastrophic.

Among the commitments Iran must meet has to be the end of its pursuit of nuclear weapons and compliance with U.N. Security Council resolutions and cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency's robust and effective certification activities.

Mr. Speaker, U.N. Security Resolution 1737 states:

Iran shall without further delay suspend the following

proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities: all enrichment-

related and reprocessing activities, including research and

development, to be verified by the IAEA; and work on all

heavy water-related projects, including the construction of a

research reactor moderated by heavy water, to be verified by

the IAEA.

This is the international community, acting through the United Nations, speaking, not only ourselves.

Mr. Speaker, the world has a responsibility to ensure that these goals are attained. But let there never be any doubt that should diplomacy fail--and all of us hope that will not be the case, but if it does--our military is, as Secretary Kerry said last week, ``ready and prepared to do what it would have to do.''

When Iran's leaders issue threats, we ought to remember the lessons of the 20th century, when the threats of tyrants and terrorists were neither effectively responded to nor heeded. History teaches us that the only way to change the behavior of regimes that threaten regional or global peace and stability is to stand up to them and hold them accountable. That is exactly what the United States and our allies are now doing.

In my view, Iran came to the negotiating table and signed the Joint Plan of Action in the hope that it might gain extended sanctions relief without having to give up the path to a nuclear weapon fully, irrevocably, and verifiably. It is past time that we make it clear to the Iranians that the only path to regaining its economic footings is to comply fully with the Joint Plan of Action and quickly conclude a long-term, comprehensive agreement which assures compliance with U.N. Security Council requirements and elimination of a nuclear-arms capability. Until that objective, Mr. Speaker, is met, there must be no doubt that all relevant sanctions will remain in effect and be fully enforced.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the administration, particularly the President, Secretary Kerry, and my dear friend, Assistant Secretary of State, Wendy Sherman. I commend them for the steps they have taken to enforce these sanctions and penalize those who seek to violate them. It ought to be clear to nations and companies around the world that Iran is not open for business.

There must also be no doubt that if Iran violates its current commitments or fails to reach an acceptable final agreement, the temporary sanctions relief will be canceled, all sanctions will be restored, and the Congress will act to put additional sanctions in place.

Iran will either comply with U.N. Security Council and IAEA determinations and foreclose any pathway to a nuclear weapon, or it will face economic decline and increasingly painful consequences.

That is not our objective for Iran or for the Iranian people. The United States does not seek war. But we will not take any option off the table to prevent Iran from acquiring the most dangerous implements of war.

While I remain skeptical, I support the administration's efforts to achieve a diplomatic resolution to this threat to our national security and to global security.

Mr. Speaker, these talks are a test--a critical test. But they are also an opportunity for Iran, for the P5+1 nations, and for all the world to seek a peaceful resolution of this critical situation that confronts the international community. Until now, Iran has failed every test and has refused to negotiate in good faith, ignoring the will of the international community--and I would add, the best interests of the Iranian people.

We must see whether this time the pressure of sanctions means that Iran is serious about reaching an agreement to dismantle its nuclear infrastructure permanently and with ongoing verification, abandoning its sponsorship of

international terrorism, respects the rights of its citizens, and determines to be a positive participant in the community of nations-- or, on the other hand, if it continues to follow the path of international outlier: fomenting instability and terror in its regions and around the world.

Mr. Speaker, the Iranian people are the inheritors of a great history and culture. They have given much to the world, including a long tradition of art, culture, and innovations in math and science. They are people for whom we rightfully have great respect. But we cannot, must not, and will not allow their leaders to continue to put the world at risk.

Mr. Speaker, I support President Obama and his administration's effort to resolve this dangerous confrontation through the ongoing negotiations. As I have said, we pray for their success. The fruits of that success will be sanctions relief for Iran and its people. If it continues, however, its path of delay and deception and continues to sow unrest and tyrannies throughout the Middle East, Iran will only exacerbate its economic isolation.

Mr. Speaker, I support the administration's conviction that the failure to achieve the expressed objectives of the P5+1 is not an option. Our finest hours as a country and as a democracy have always been when the free and democratic nations of the world came together with courage and resolve to protect and preserve international security and freedom.

And our greatest strength has always been our willingness to negotiate--in this case with a determination to attain an agreement that is fair, but with a conviction that it must assure--it must assure--that Iran does not attain a nuclear weapons capability now or in the future.

Mr. Speaker, the time is short. The consequences are profound, and success is our only option.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 1 o'clock and 30 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Monday, March 3, 2014, at noon for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding. I thank my colleagues from Florida for being on the floor, and I rise to urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that instead we can call up a bipartisan bill to alleviate the anxiety of millions of homeowners in flood-prone areas that their flood insurance premiums won't become simply unaffordable.

Should we do any less? Twice already we have had the votes in this House to bring up this bill, a companion of which passed the Senate with a bipartisan vote of 68-32 on January 30. There is no reason why this bill wouldn't pass overwhelmingly.

Once again, partisan politics has wedged itself into Congress' best intentions and the potential for achieving results. It is surprising that Republican Members from flood-prone districts have twice voted to block this bill from coming to the floor and to deprive their constituents of the assistance they need and the reassurance they deserve.

Sometimes party asks too much. Sometimes party asks for votes which will hurt your constituents. Rise above party and vote for your people. We should not repeat the overwhelming delay that occurred in supplying assistance in response to Superstorm Sandy. After that storm, the Republican leadership blocked Congress from taking action on emergency disaster funding for more than 90 days.

The continued obstruction of this bipartisan flood insurance bill is an unfortunate continuation of that same trend of letting partisanship get in the way of doing what is right. I know there are many of our colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle that want to do what is right for their constituents. Do not let party regularity dissuade you from doing the right thing.

I appeal to them, Mr. Speaker, to support their constituents, not their party, by setting partisanship aside, working with us to defeat the previous question, and allowing the House to vote on the Grimm- Waters legislation, a bipartisan piece of legislation that will make sure homeowners don't find themselves under water in more ways than one.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the previous question, what does that mean? Our constituents, Mr. Speaker, must be watching. What is Mr. Hoyer talking about the previous question? What is all this talk about the previous question?

I thank the gentleman.

It is simply a vote by which it says that, if the previous question is not approved, we can offer the bipartisan legislation to give the relief that is so desperately needed now, not 90 days from now--now. So defeat this previous question.

And my Republican colleagues, if you care about your flood-ravaged and flood-risk constituents, vote ``no'' on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I share my friend's view that we need to be worried about the solvency of our Nation. We haven't done such a good job at that. We are, by the way, going to have a bill on the floor pretty soon which won't do much for that either, somewhat irresponsibly, in my view.

But the solvency that I am worried about right now is the guy who lives in a $190,000 home with his family and has got a $25,000 premium facing him yearly, annual premium. It is going to make him move out of his home. But the problem he is going to have is nobody is going to buy his home. We need to act.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York and I thank the gentleman from Michigan.

Let me start by saying this issue ought not to be subject to debate. America, the greatest land on the face of the Earth, and one of the most successful economic countries in history, ought to pay its bills. I can't believe there is any American who thinks that America should or would welch on that which it owes. That is not a very sophisticated argument. I can make a more sophisticated argument, but when it comes down to it, that is the issue: will America pay its bills? Will it give confidence to the investor community? Will it give confidence to the business community? Will it give confidence to our own citizens? Indeed, will we give confidence to the world that the world's leader can manage its own affairs responsibly?

I want to join Leader Pelosi in congratulating the Speaker for bringing this bill to the floor. He brings it to the floor because he knows, as I have just said, there is no alternative for America but to pay its bills. He brings it to the floor because he knows that if he doesn't, the business community is going to think that the majority party in this House cannot manage the affairs of the United States of America in a responsible fashion. Lamentably, he brings it to the floor, apparently, with some doubts as to whether or not those who have elected him Speaker will follow him in taking a responsible path.

My presumption is, although I don't know, is that the gentleman who chairs the Ways and Means Committee will vote for this. My presumption is Mr. Cantor, the majority leader, will vote for this. My presumption is that Speaker Boehner will vote for this. My presumption is based upon the fact that they have represented that there is not an alternative that is a responsible one.

I doubt that there are many people on this floor who have urged us to pursue a big deal more than I have. I voted against the last budget agreement, otherwise known as Ryan-Murray, because I thought it was too small and did not move us toward fiscal responsibility and sustainability in the magnitude that it should have.

Having said that, however, there is no alternative to pay the bills that we have incurred, that the House, the Senate, and the President on behalf of the American people have incurred, and because we are a great Nation, we will certainly not welch on our debts.

So we come to this time with not many people on the floor, although we have demagogued this issue in the past. We, both sides. Let's be clear. On our side, we said that the Republicans cut revenues; therefore, they were responsible for the debt. On their side, they say Democrats spent money and invested money; and, therefore, they are responsible for the debt.

The fact of the matter is we were all responsible for the debt. The fact of the matter is under the Reagan administration, when I came to Congress, we substantially increased the national debt, and we could only do so with Ronald Reagan's signature. Then under George Bush the first, we substantially increased the debt. We could only do so with George Bush's signature. Under Bill Clinton, we brought the debt down for 4 years running, and we ran surpluses for the next 4. Of course, Republicans were in the House and in charge for 6 years. So it was a team effort, if you will, and we had a budget surplus.

Then in the second Bush administration, we substantially increased the budget deficit. We had two wars, and we paid for none; trillion dollar-plus in additional deficit, many trillions over time.

So, my friends, we come to the floor today to do the only responsible alternative available to us, but that does not mean that anybody who votes for this believes that it is not critically important for us to have America on a fiscally sustainable path.

The Business Roundtable has urged us to pass this bill. As Leader Pelosi quoted, the Chamber of Commerce said not to do so will put our country and our economy at risk. Yet, I fear there are going to be apparently a significant number of people who will come and vote ``no,'' vote ``no'' on paying America's bills; vote ``no'' on giving confidence to the international community that America is in fact able to manage its affairs.

There ought to be no debate, as I said, when it comes to making sure that we pay our bills on time, the bills Congress has incurred. As I said, the Business Roundtable was quoted as saying:

Urgent action is required on the part of Congress in order

to prevent a default.

In fact, they said if we defaulted, every American, all 315-plus million, would feel the negative effects. Why would anybody vote against such a bill?

I will conclude because my friend is running out of time. This is not a partisan vote and should not be viewed as such. Republicans and Democrats have voted to protect the American people, provide for the national defense, and provide for the general welfare of our country pursuant to our constitutional responsibilities. Having done so, there is no responsible alternative but to pay our bills. That is what this vote is about. Let's show the courage, the wisdom, the common sense to do just that. Vote ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I now yield to Mr. Cantor, the majority leader, for the recitation of the schedule.

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for that information.

The gentleman ends with the observation that you expect action to avoid default as soon as possible. As you know, Mr. Leader, very well-- as we all know--beginning tomorrow, the Treasury Department will have to start using extraordinary measures because

the authorization for the debt limit to be extended will end on the 7th. Secretary Lew has written to all of us and warned us that, on Monday, stating that:

Time is short. Inaction could cause harm to our economy,

rattle financial markets, and hurt taxpayers.

I know that my friend has made similar comments, as I have made similar comments. We agree on this proposition. But I am concerned that we only have 7 legislative days scheduled for the rest of the month.

Does the gentleman expect that we will take an up-or-down vote on a clean debt limit extension next week or before the end of this month?

I yield to my friend.

I appreciate that information. I want to say that the debt limit extension will have--Mr. Leader, I want to give you the information--in my view, well over 180 votes on our side of the aisle if that is a clean debt limit so that America can pay its bills and default is not a risk. As the gentleman indicates, we don't want it to be.

The Speaker has indicated that it would be solved long before we would come to any deadline precipitating another crisis and undermining confidence.

I want to tell the gentleman, the majority leader, that I will assure him that if we get a clean debt limit extension on the floor, that Democrats will work with him and his party to pass that in a way that we have a significant majority for that bill.

Mr. Leader, I was encouraged to see last week at your retreat that the House Republicans put forward a set of principles for immigration reform and have now expressed a readiness to discuss how to fix our broken immigration system. I am sure you have seen the response from my side of the aisle, not only from the President, but myself and Leader Pelosi, has been positive. We see the steps that have been taken as positive steps. We do look forward to working together on these principles.

We were just somewhat disappointed, however, that one of your Members, Raul Labrador of Idaho, was quoted yesterday as saying there was:

Overwhelming support for the idea of doing nothing this

year. It is a mistake to have an internal battle this year

about immigration.

I would hope that Mr. Labrador's remarks do not lead us to a place where we will either not proceed or to pass immigration reform on this floor.

The majority leader has indicated in some of our colloquies that he believes the immigration system is broken. Again, we share that view, and I think almost all Members share the view that the immigration system is not working as intended. There have been four bills passed out of Judiciary and another out of Homeland Security. Homeland Security was essentially unanimous in terms of dealing with security. We have introduced, as the majority leader knows, H.R. 15, which is a compilation of the bipartisanly passed Senate provisions, dropping the border security provision and inserting the border security passed out of the Republican-led Homeland Security Committee, I think by unanimous vote, but maybe it was by voice vote.

I would hope that we could, therefore, move forward and that Mr. Labrador's observation that there was ``overwhelming support for the idea of doing nothing this year'' would not be the prevalent view. We will again be ready to discuss this, and I can tell you that the overwhelming majority of my party, as I think the gentleman knows, would vote for the Senate bill. We don't think that the Senate bill is perfect. We would like to see a House bill. We have introduced a House bill, and we would like to consider it on the floor.

I will close with this observation with reference to immigration. I am sure the gentleman read the comments of former Speaker Dennis Hastert:

The House will act in its own way, as it should; but it

should act soon. Immigration reform is necessary for our

economic recovery.

Again, this is former Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois. He goes on to say:

First, securing our borders, so we know who is entering our

country and for what purpose.

I think there is unanimous consensus that needs to be addressed.

He continues:

Second, a legalization of those folks who are already here.

Again, I think there is consensus on that.

He goes on to say we should provide them with:

A path to citizenship, much like any other immigrant would

have.

Apparently, there is not necessarily consensus on that, but we do have consensus on the first proposition. He goes on to say:

These two things being satisfied, I believe immigration

reform can move forward. It will make us economically

stronger. It is politically smart, and morally right.

That was quoted in Politico on February 2. Those are words of former Speaker Hastert. I would hope and I know the gentleman has been very constructive in his comments that we can move forward together in reaching some agreement so we can see comprehensive immigration legislation on the floor consistent with the principles of both parties, and we can come together and pass some legislation.

I yield to the gentleman as to the prospects of doing so.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Labrador, and I will quote again, said there was:

Overwhelming support for the idea of doing nothing this

year.

Now in light of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that the observation is that the system is broken, and in light of Speaker Hastert's observation that it is morally the right thing to do, I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, I don't place much stock in this what I would call a rationalization of trust.

Mr. Speaker, let me remind this House that George Bush, President George Bush, couldn't get the support of his party for immigration reform. His party rejected President Bush on this issue, this issue of trust. There are less illegal immigrants having come

over the border in the last 5 years than there were during the Bush administration. There have been more people deported, in many cases with tragic results of separating families, over the last 5 years than there were in the Bush administration.

This is a question of what is morally right to do.

This is a question of what is morally right to do, to fix a broken system that is breaking apart families, undermining our economy, and abandoning what so many say is the right thing to do.

So with all due respect to, frankly, trying to distract us on this trust issue, this is not a trust issue. This is an issue of law and the administration's performance both on border security and enforcing the law in this respect, a bad law and a law that ought to be changed, a law that is causing families to be torn apart.

Mr. Speaker, I have stood on this floor as chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe with my colleague, Frank Wolf, and I believe Mr. Cantor, perhaps, has been in some of these discussions himself when we have been dealing with the Soviet Union about keeping families together. So I will tell my friend, Mr. Speaker, this is not a matter of trust. This is a matter of whether the House of Representatives is going to do what Speaker Hastert has urged us to do, what President Bush urged us to do, and for which I think there are the votes to do on this floor if a bill is brought to the floor that accomplishes the principles that both parties have articulated.

Are there differences? There are some. Do we need to resolve them? We do. But we need to act. I say with all due respect to my friend, the majority leader, that I hope that those principles do not fall by the wayside as Mr. Labrador projects there is a consensus in your party to allow to happen.

So I would urge us to move and urge us to work together on the principles that Mr. Boehner and yourself have put forward and which we have responded to in a positive way.

Mr. Leader, there is also other business that needs to be done. We continue to be concerned, we were concerned when there were 1.2 million people who had fallen through the cracks and had no help. Now there are 1.7 million Americans who have lost their emergency unemployment insurance since December 28. An additional 72,000 will lose their insurance next week. We believe that needs to be addressed and reinstated, as we have done every time that we were in a similar place as we are today in terms of the availability of jobs and the seekers of jobs.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the majority leader if he can give us some view of the sustainable growth rate reimbursement for doctors who give our senior citizens medical care? That was extended with a temporary patch to March 31, Mr. Speaker, and that needs to be addressed permanently. There is a consensus, I understand, among the committees for a fix on that, but there is no pay-for on that. That is always the problem. It is easy to say we are going to fix; it is very difficult to pay for those fixes. On both of those issues, I would ask the gentleman on unemployment insurance and the SGR, whether the gentleman has any view on either one of those coming to the floor any time soon?

I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. I might say the SKILLS Act, of course, was considered on this floor. We could have had a bipartisan bill, and I would like to see a bipartisan bill.

As the majority leader knows, I have been a strong proponent of an agenda that we call Make It In America, which wants to expand manufacturing in America. We believe that when we expand manufacturing, grow jobs in America, Americans are going to be more likely to Make It In America, succeed, get a job, be able to support their families.

So there is, I think, not disagreement on that. There was disagreement on the SKILLS Act. We believe the SKILLS Act essentially retreated in investments with skills.

I will certainly yield.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think anybody in America believes the White House doesn't want to do something about that. The President of the United States has talked about it. In every one of his State of the Unions he talked about it. In this State of the Union, he talked about expanding manufacturing and training. So the President has talked about it, all the time

about wanting to invest in giving the skills to American workers that they need to either stay employed or get the kind of skilled jobs that are available in our economy, that pay well.

There are a number of bills, I will tell the majority leader, in the Make It In America agenda that I would love to work with the majority leader on that deal exactly with that. I have a bill myself--actually, I think somebody else introduced it--called the Jobs bill, which is job opportunities between our shores, which is exactly on point of dealing with advanced manufacturers, community colleges, and other organizations in cooperation with work investment boards to identify what skills are needed, to invest in training.

The gentleman is correct, we all want to do that, and we certainly ought to be able to work towards that. He is incorrect in that the President has not only not focused on that, he has worked on that. The Secretary of Labor, Tom Perez, has worked on it; Penny Pritzker, the Secretary of Commerce, is very committed to that end; as is Arne Duncan, the Secretary of Education, and they have all talked about that. So let us work on it.

What the gentleman talked about, he cares a lot about, and I think he does. Mr. Speaker, I absolutely take him at his word. He cares about those people who have--through no fault of their own--lost their job, work wasn't available, they downsized, whatever, they lost their job.

He said he is concerned about those people, as he should be, as I am, as we all are. But one of the real tragedies is, particularly with those folks who are 45 or 50 and above, once they have lost a job, they have a terrible time in this economy finding a job. There are three people looking for every one job that is available. And a lot of those people, as the gentleman has observed, don't have the skills.

So the issue is not just about giving them skills; it is, in the interim, do we let them and their families fall through the cracks, fall through a safety net, fall out of the insurance that they paid into, their employer paid into, in the event they lost their job they would not lose the ability to support themselves to put some food on their table? That is why we are so adamant that unemployment insurance be extended.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, it has been extended under every administration when the facts were as they are today--Republican administration, Democratic administration--for the reasons that the majority leader pointed out. We care about those people. We are worried about those people. So I would hope that that would be on the floor.

On the SGR, let me close by suggesting that there is, as the gentleman knows, an Overseas Contingency Operations account. The CBO scores that significantly.

The good news is that we are not spending as much money as we were. We spent over a trillion dollars in the last decade in Afghanistan and Iraq. Better to spend that money in this instance here at home. I would suggest, respectfully, that that is one alternative to doing what the gentleman says we all want to do, and that is fix the sustainable growth rate on a permanent basis so that doctors and Medicare patients are not worried about whether their medical services are going to be available to them. I would hope we would look at that alternative, and I would be glad to discuss with the majority leader other alternatives as well.

Unless the majority leader has anything further to say, thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 3824 to end the Republicans' refusal to extend unemployment benefits that protect 25,092 people in my State of Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, Mr. Cantor, for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come.

I thank the gentleman for that information. I note that he indicates that we probably will not be able to accomplish the omnibus by the end of next week and, therefore, a CR may be required.

I know that all of us feel that that needs to be accomplished as quickly as possible. I would point out to the gentleman in conversations that he says it is going to be on suspension. I will support it on suspension, urge my colleagues to support it on suspension.

Can the gentleman tell me, however, how long that CR will go that will affect us somewhat?

I hope that was not a Freudian slip of our confidence in the ability to get that done as quickly as we would like.

In any event, I think that is appropriate, and I am hopeful that we can, in fact, accomplish that.

I want to tell the majority leader from my perspective that if we don't get that done in the short term, then I would be very reluctant to support continuing resolutions at the level which has now been substituted for the agreement that was reached in the bipartisan budget agreement.

There are substantial differences, as you know, in the 302(a) allocation, the allocation of discretionary spending, one at $1.012 trillion and one at $986 billion, so that there is a substantial discrepancy between those figures.

We reached agreement on the higher number. The Senate came down about 45, the House went up about 45 and reached a compromise. I think America was pleased that we reached a compromise. I would want to be on the

record as saying that if we went to longer term CRs, I would want to have some serious discussions about the level of those CRs in terms of the operations of government.

The other issue I wanted to ask the gentleman about, as you know, we had a previous question yesterday. That previous question, had it been defeated, would have allowed the House to consider the extension of unemployment insurance for 3 months, consistent with what the Senate had proposed. Now, the Senate has not reached agreement on this issue, but unfortunately that has not been considered on the floor this week. As the gentleman knows, 72,000 people a week are losing their unemployment insurance. That adds to 1.3 million that have already lost their own insurance on December 28.

I know it is not listed on your sheet, nor did you mention it in your comments on the floor. Can the gentleman tell me whether there is any prospect of the unemployment insurance bill coming to this floor? Mr. Tierney has a bill that he has introduced that I think probably enjoys, at this point in time, well over 150 Democrats, and I think all Democrats will sign on to it. I would hope that we together, as we did when President Bush was President, and we did it five times, I would hope that we could extend unemployment for those people who were relying on it to put food on their tables.

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for his comments.

First, I would say, there is nothing to disagree with in what the gentleman has said. We do want to focus on jobs. We do want to focus on creating jobs. We do want to focus on growing the economy. The gentleman is absolutely correct. As a matter of fact, as the gentleman knows, he and I have discussed the agenda that Democrats have been talking about for 2\1/2\ years, and it is called Make It In America.

That Make It In America agenda focuses on manufacturing and growing opportunities in this country for good jobs for skilled workers and unskilled workers, frankly, but mainly skilled workers in the new manufacturing environment in which we find ourselves. That ought to be our long-term objective.

I would say very candidly, Mr. Speaker, we ought not in the short term forget those who have been deeply damaged by the economic dislocation that has occurred in our society, in our country, and frankly globally over the past 5 years, or actually starting in December of '07. We ought not to forget those people, because while a future investment is very interesting to them, and I am sure important to them, their critical interest is in putting food on their table today, tomorrow, and the next day. I think the richest country on the face of the Earth could do both, I tell the gentleman. And I think that we ought to do both, and we have done both in the past.

We had some job figures that were out today, apparently 87,000 jobs in the private sector. That's not enough. We lost 13,000 in the public sector apparently for a net of 74,000 appreciation of jobs. That's not nearly enough. The gentleman would agree, I know, to solve the problem that we have.

The gentleman talked about the SKILLS Act. That bill would freeze the Workforce Investment Act program funding for fiscal years 2014 to 2020. We would make no more investment in doing what the gentleman has said we want to do. It has already been cut by half since 2001 and would also consolidate or eliminate 35 programs, most of them the Workforce Incentive Act programs, into State block grants that they could spend on things of their choice.

I am not saying that some States wouldn't make good choices. I think they would. Other States would make different choices, and we may or may not agree with those. But I certainly tell the gentleman, and he and I have had the opportunity talking together, the Make It In America agenda, or a jobs agenda, or whatever that agenda is called, is certainly something we ought to pursue.

Let me transition, if I might, Mr. Leader, to talk about another issue which analysis of almost every economist and the Congressional Budget Office say will help grow the economy, and that is comprehensive immigration reform. We continue to believe that that is one of the most important issues that this Congress in this second session of the Congress ought to deal with. Can the gentleman indicate whether there is any possibility of either, as I said in weeks past, bringing the four bills that came out of the Judiciary Committee or the border security bill that came out of the Homeland Security Committee, I might say, unanimously? None of those five bills have been brought to the floor.

The Speaker said just the other day, I am trying to find some way to get this thing done. ``Thing'' being immigration reform. He said, It is, as you know, not easy. Not going to be an easy path forward, but I made it clear since the day after the election, it is time to get this done.

The Speaker said that November 13, 2013, a couple months ago. We are very, very hopeful that the Speaker will pursue that, the House will pursue that, and the majority leader will put on the floor legislation on which we can act. We may or may not agree with the legislation brought to the floor, but we think it needs to be given attention, consistent with Speaker Boehner's observation, and CBO's assertion, that that would have a substantially positive effect on growing the economy and creating jobs.

I yield to my friend.

I thank the leader for his comments.

Certainly we are not proponents of ``my way or the highway,'' and I am glad, I do believe, that hopefully the majority leader is not either.

Briefly, on the SKILLS Act, we have legislation, of course, on our side of the aisle, a number of pieces of legislation which deal with training, job skills, and we are certainly prepared to work on those. Unfortunately, as the gentleman knows, that bill passed out in a partisan way. There were two Democrats who voted for it. But I am certainly willing to work with the gentleman, and I think our side of the aisle is willing to work with the gentleman to invest and to give flexibility so that we can recognize, obviously, that what may be needed in my district or the gentleman from Virginia's district is different from a district in Washington State or California or Texas or Florida or Maine. So I want to assure the gentleman that we are prepared to work on that.

Next, can I ask you when those principles that you talked about might be expected, because I think that would be a very positive step forward. But, in my view, if we wait long, comprehensive immigration reform will not get accomplished, as I believe it should be, in the next few months.

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman.

And in conclusion, let me simply say, Mr. Leader, that we welcome moving ahead on the omnibus. We think that is very critical. We hope that we can address the unemployment insurance issue, not as a substitute for focusing on growing jobs and growing the economy, which is essential, but in recognition that some 1.3 million people--growing by 72,000 people a week--are in deep distress, and we want to help them. We think that is the right thing to do. And we think America can do both, grow the economy and help those who have been hurt by the decrease in the availability of jobs available.

Lastly, I might say, that we also hope that we can get to immigration reform as quickly as possible, and we look forward to seeing those principles.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I appreciate this opportunity to comment not only upon this rule which provides, of course, for mostly closed rules--no amendments, no ability to change or modify, particularly two bills that had no hearings, went to no committees, and were reported out doing stuff that we did for 2013 almost without exception--but what I really rise to say is that I want to urge every Member to vote against the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I know the American public will hear ``previous question.'' What does that mean? The previous question, if defeated, will give us the opportunity to put on this floor what the overwhelming majority of the American people want on this floor, which I understand the gentleman from Michigan, as I just was walking in, I think was talking about. That is to deal with the most pressing issue confronting this country right now today. That is that we have 1.3 million Americans who have simply been dropped through whatever safety net we thought we had constructed.

So, Mr. Speaker, the American public understands, the previous question will give us the opportunity, if it is defeated, to put that legislation on the floor now, to extend for those 1.3 million people the help of the American people who want to do it. In every poll they say, no, we ought to have this help.

When George W. Bush was President of the United States, five times we extended unemployment insurance for long-term unemployed--five times-- without paying for it.

And make no mistake about it; the vote on the previous question is whether or not you want to give long-term unemployed who have lost their insurance and are having trouble putting food on their tables, if you want to give

them help, you will vote ``no'' on the previous question. Don't hide behind a procedural issue. This is a substantive issue. This is an issue of whether we are going to give help now.

The American public that is for this ought to be looking at it. And every Member who votes ``yes'' on the previous question is voting not-- not--to give help to those folks, 1.3 million of them, 20,000 veterans who can't find a job. And there is only one job available for every three people that are looking for a job.

That is why George W. Bush extended unemployment. That is why we ought to do it. And we can do it. We have the ability to do it. Vote ``no'' on the previous question. It is a substantive vote on whether or not you want to help the long-term unemployed who have lost, as of December 28, 3 days after Christmas, the season of giving and caring, whether you want to give them the unemployment insurance that they count on to feed themselves and their families and have their heads above water.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule and urge a vote instead to bring to the floor a bill introduced by the ranking member of the ways and means committee, my friend Mr. Tierney.

His bill will do what Congress ought to have done before we left for the holidays: extend the emergency unemployment insurance benefits that were cut off so suddenly for 1.3 million of our fellow citizens who are looking for work.

It is shameful that Republicans continue to block an extension of this lifeline for so many who are struggling to find jobs and are facing an extremely difficult job market, where in some places there are three job seekers for each open position.

Democrats will continue to put pressure on our colleagues across the aisle to work with us in a bipartisan way to extend these emergency benefits while our jobs recovery continues.

Representative Tierney's bill would extend these benefits for three months to allow Congress time to work on a long-term solution.

There is no reason why 1.3 million people--a number that will grow by an average 72,000 a week for as long as Congress fails to act--should have to go without the emergency income that supports them and their families.

We need to promote job creation and get our people back to work, while at the same time ensuring that we're helping people stay out of poverty.

I call on my Republican friends to join with us in extending these emergency benefits right now and then working together to invest in the economic competitiveness that will create the jobs we need.

I thank the gentlelady for taking this time. I thank the gentlelady even more for taking the time and the focus and being indefatigable in making sure that the richest Nation on the face of the Earth focuses on the least of these in our country. I thank her for her leadership. I am proud that she is working on the Task Force on Poverty, Income Inequality, and Opportunity. And in chairing that effort for our caucus, she is doing an extraordinary job.

It is time, however, that all of us continue to do an extraordinary job. When President Johnson stood in this Chamber at that rostrum, Mr. Speaker, on January 8, 1964, he declared an ``unconditional war on poverty in America.'' That has been said so many times today. He launched a legislative agenda that led to the creation of Medicare, Medicaid, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and nutrition assistance for those at risk of going hungry, particularly our children.

Today, thanks to that war on poverty, infant mortality has substantially decreased, childhood malnutrition has fallen significantly, and college graduations have risen.

But that is not to declare victory. There is much yet to be done. The poverty rate for senior citizens in 1959 was 35 percent. Today, it is 9 percent thanks to the New Deal and Great Society programs. Food stamps continue to keep as many as 4 million Americans out of poverty, which is why it is so critical to provide robust SNAP funding in the farm bill, Mr. Speaker.

Fifty years, a half a century after President Johnson launched the war on poverty, as we take stock of the progress we have made, we must be candid in assessing the difficult challenges that remain before us. That is what Congresswoman Lee is bringing to our attention and to the attention of the country.

Following the Great Recession, and with long-term unemployment higher than it was a few years ago, millions of our fellow Americans are today teetering on the edge of poverty while others still have yet to escape its grasp. In 2012, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, nearly 50 million people in America were poor in the richest land on the face of the Earth, and more than one in five of those were children.

States and local governments, under pressure from reductions in Federal funding for domestic programs, are struggling to maintain the safety net that, for a generation, have placed a floor under those who have lost a job, fallen ill, or were born into dire circumstances.

As middle class families have strained under the difficult conditions of the recession and its consequences, the lowest-income Americans have been forced to endure a severe lack of opportunities to enter the middle class. We want to promote jobs. We want to make sure the middle class can succeed, support themselves and their families and have the kind of life that we dream of and promise as an American. We also want to make sure that those who are not middle class can get into the middle class.

In his State of the Union address in 1964, President Johnson said this:

Very often, a lack of jobs and money is not the cause of

poverty but the symptom. The cause may lie deeper in our

failure to give our fellow citizens a fair chance to develop

their own capacities, in a lack of education and training, in

a lack of medical care and housing, in a lack of decent

communities in which to live and bring up their children.

Poverty is the result, not the cause. Central to our ability to sustain the American dream is our responsibility to one another to make upward mobility possible.

Right now, 1.4 million Americans--right now, Mr. Speaker--are worrying about meeting their basic needs since emergency unemployment insurance was cut off on December 28 of last year,

3 days after Christmas, the season of giving, the season of caring, and the season of thinking about those who are in need. Every week that goes by without turning this lifeline back on will see another 72,000 Americans lose their emergency income.

Congress has the ability to restore these benefits right now, and Democrats, proud of our history leading the war on poverty, will continue to push and demand for that extension. Democrats will keep fighting for a strong, secure, and growing middle class by working to raise the minimum wage--and I see my friend from Maryland (Mr. Delaney) in the back of the Chamber; Congressman Delaney has been leading an effort in our State to make sure that we raise the minimum wage--and making sure the Affordable Care Act expands access to quality health care as intended.

We must also create a pathway to citizenship and opportunity for undocumented workers who are living in the shadows in poverty as part of comprehensive immigration reform, and we must be vigorous in enforcing our laws that prevent discrimination in housing, hiring, and access to education.

Mr. Speaker, if we are to make serious progress in the war on poverty in the years to come, it will have to be as a result of both parties working together to prioritize economic opportunity and upward mobility.

Mr. Speaker, I will say that there are Republican leaders, and I applaud them for it, who are talking about and focusing on those in poverty, those who have little in our country. I applaud them for talking, but talk is not enough. We must invest in making sure that they can avail themselves of the promise of America, not by telling the most vulnerable Americans that they will have to fend for themselves, that their fellow citizens will not lend a helping hand during their time of need.

I'm glad, Mr. Speaker, that President Obama has chosen to make reducing economic inequality a focus in 2014. This, Mr. Speaker, ought to be our sacred charge: to carry on the work that President Johnson and others began, without pause, until hunger, homelessness, and economic insecurity, in any form, no longer endanger the promise of our Nation.

I thank the gentlelady for her leadership and for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, arguably, Mr. Speaker, this Congress is the least productive one in which I have served over the last 33 years. Both from a humanitarian standpoint and an economic one, this Congress has earned the disdain of the American people irrespective of their party affiliation.

I rise, Mr. Speaker, specifically to express my and the Democratic minority's strong objection to adjourning this first session of the 113th Congress without extending unemployment insurance eligibility for the 1.3 million Americans, including 20,000 military veterans, who will lose that support in just 48 hours. This number will increase by 73,000 people, on average, every week that we continue to block an extension.

That is both a moral outrage and another congressionally inflicted blow to our economy, and it is unprecedented. Whenever unemployment levels have been as they are today, the Congress has extended benefits.

It is, sadly, consistent with our failure to pass meaningful jobs legislation proposed by the President.

It is, sadly, consistent with our failure to pass comprehensive immigration reform, which is broadly supported by business, labor, farmers, farm workers, and an overwhelming number of religious leaders and members of the faith community.

It is, sadly, consistent with our failure to pass a farm bill, which could give confidence to those in dire need of help putting food on their families' tables that this Congress will not abandon them; and ironically, Mr. Speaker, we do so at the very time that our Nation celebrates a message of giving and hope.

All this we leave undone after passing a so-called budget ``compromise,'' whose only virtue was that it was slightly better than the draconian and the irrational sequester--condemned on both sides of the aisle as unworkable, unrealistic, and ill-conceived. So, it is a so-called ``compromise'' that will be tested in just a few short weeks and which failed to assure that America will pay its bills in the months ahead.

Mr. Speaker, if I thought objecting to this motion to adjourn by unanimous consent would lead to an extension of unemployment for the 1.3 million Americans who have been unable to find work or to a House leadership bringing to the floor issues that I have listed, I would object to this House adjourning with so much of the people's work undone, but sadly, Mr. Speaker, such an objection would have no such effect. I and my party deeply regret that reality.

Mr. Speaker, we will return in January of 2014, urging our Republican colleagues to address the needs of so many millions of Americans who want us to do the work they sent us here to do.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, sadly, I withdraw my reservation.

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.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman who preceded me said he is a freshman. I have been here for 33 years. For 23 of those years I served on the Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee. I served under some extraordinary Republicans and some extraordinary Democrats who chaired that committee. The ones I served under made sure that the NIH got the resources it needed to investigate, research, and try to come up with the cures that will ameliorate the afflictions of mankind from a health perspective.

Of the sponsors of this bill, 134 of them voted for the Ryan budget. The Ryan budget--had it been adopted, had it been implemented--would have cut the National Institutes of Health by $6 billion.

The budget that we are going to consider will still require reductions in NIH funding by perhaps as much as 80 times to 100 times the money that is theoretically in this bill. By the way, there is no money in this bill. This is an authorization. As I am sure Ms. DeLauro, who is the ranking member, has pointed out it provides no money.

Many of you, perhaps, are going to vote for a budget that will cut NIH; but you are going to pass a bill, and that is what Mr. Collins apparently is concerned about, because we are saying that this is a facade, a pretense of support. Paper will not help pediatric research. Money will, investment will.

To that extent, this is not real. It is a message. Everybody on this floor, I presume, is for children's health, is for pediatric research, is for trying to make sure that our children are healthy and saved from disease and affliction. I presume all of us are for it, but talk is cheap.

The Ryan budget would have cut $800 million from pediatric research alone; 134 of the sponsors of this bill voted for the Ryan budget. In other words, on one hand you are given--theoretically, if there was money available to do this--$11 million for pediatric research with this hand--that is 113 over 10--and $800 million being taken away with this hand.

Who do you think you are fooling?

So let's not fool the public that we are doing something for pediatric research. I know my friend, Mr. Upton, has been a supporter of NIH in years past. And he is my dear friend and a good Member, but I tell my friend, this bill does not do anything for pediatric research.

You will have an opportunity to vote for pediatric research; vote to get rid of the sequester. Vote to invest in the National Institutes of Health, not to cut it. That will make a difference for pediatric research.

I urge the defeat of this bill.

Will the gentleman yield?

I will be glad to make a suggestion on how you could do that.

You have got to have money.

If you don't have any money, you can't spend it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the long and influential career of Ms. Cynthia Leighton.

For twenty years, I have had the distinct honor of serving as co- chair of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus. During this time I have met so many dedicated men and women from outside the traditional ranks of the fire service who are passionate about the health and safety of our Nation's firefighters and first responders. Cynthia Leighton is among those individuals, and truly strives to assist and protect those who keep our communities safe and secure.

As a fire service liaison from Motorola and Motorola Solutions for the past twenty-eight years, Cynthia has been the company's go-to person on issues facing first responders, always willing and able to hear concerns, answer questions, and provide assistance--whether the inquiry comes from a local firefighter or a national fire organization, such as the Congressional Fire Services Institute or the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation. Each year at both the annual National Fire and Emergency Services Dinner and the National Fallen Firefighters Memorial Service, she is often behind the scenes making sure that the event organizers have the proper resources they needed for a successful program.

Going above and beyond her job description at Motorola, Cynthia has demonstrated an enormous capacity for helping others and doing whatever she can to support the work of our first responders. On behalf of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus, I thank Cynthia for her dedication and outstanding contributions to the safety of our Nation's firefighters. I wish her the best in all her future endeavors.