tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN December 12, 2013 10:00am-3:01pm EST
seen we are looking to apples to apples comparison looking at existing coverage to the new plans are being offered is that the increases are falling -- are far less than what were projected. that is not me on every individual case that is going to be the case. in fact, for -- that does not mean on every single case that is going to be the case. fact, some plans will be more responsive than the cheapest plan. some groups with younger employees are going to end up taking slightly more -- paying slightly more. it is important to look at the apples to apples comparison between what people have had and what is being offered. there are some cases with plans people had that thought they liked were really airboats. i guess they were inexpensive, but if anything happened to the people, they were not going to cover them. again, i do not know your situation. it is important to talk to professionals and get some apples to apples comparison on
that. host: i have to end it there. so sorry pretty house is in now for live coverage. the house because for live -- four legislative session today. live coverage here on c-span. in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. lumenauer, for five minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you, madam speaker. i was proud to stand with representatives from the u.s. chamber, the afl-cio, contractors, local government, transit truckers, a.a.a., environmentalists all supporting h.r. 3636 to update
the gas tax. the predictable firestorm. there was a rant from a shouting head on fox who thought not only did we not need transportation money, but thought that the previous money had somehow disappeared. even the people who supported the gas tax said it was a horrible idea, like the article in slate saying it's the best least popular idea in pop particulars. it provoked a tornado of reaction, some laudatory, some inflammatory, but had three major points -- where did this idea come from? well, it came from my decades of work in transportation studying, listening to people from portland, maine, to portland, oregon, north carolina, seattle, california. it was 10 years' experience that i had directing the transportation functions at the city of portland as the
commissioner of public works where i saw firsthand the impact of poor and declining infrastructure. it is every single major independent study that says we eed more money for transportation, not less, and that is a disaster that we are supposed to slash transportation funding october 1 unless something happens. the question is, isn't this unfair to lower income americans? well, actually no. lower income americans stand to benefit the most. people who at the mercy of oil companies and foreign producers who don't know how much they'll pay for gasoline next week, whether it's $3.35 when i left portland earlier this week or $4.25. that's why they think the gas tax goes up every year. ut it hasn't increased since 1993. lower income people are more
transportation-dependent. they work in the main by the hour, a traffic delay or deteriorating transit hits them harder because they have fewer choices. terrible road conditions cost them money as it wastes fuel, it damages tires, shake their cars out of alignment. and lower income people stand to benefit from the thousands -- hundreds of thousands of family wage jobs that will be created. well, my favorite question is, if this is so unpopular and such a remote possibility, why even bother? well, it is remote, but it's not impossible. the -- look at the user fee increase that ronald reagan signed, a nickel a gallon in 1982. and we need leadership today if
we're going to meet serious transportation challenges and help jump-start our economy. it may sound quaint, but i think leadership is not what you do when it's popular. leadership is what you do when it is needed. and i hope congress will lead on transportation funding. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. holding, for five minutes. madam speaker, the disastrous rollout of obamacare has shunned those who are quick to sing its praises we're not actually prepared to implement it. it quickly became apparent after the online exchanges were open that healthcare.gov was unworkable. ople that were trying to get accounts got error messages
only to be sent to the beginning and got glitches. the agencies responsible clearly were not prepared for the launch of healthcare.gov. they blamed issues with the website on unexpected volume, which simply does not make sense. obamacare requires all americans to have health insurance or face a fine. there are over 313 million people in the united states, so how could they not expect a high volume? madam speaker, the american people are paying for web -- for a website that doesn't even work and they are paying an outrageous amount. in her testimony before the energy and commerce committee yesterday secretary sebelius told said the administration spent $313 million on healthcare.gov so far and health and human services has budgeted $677 million for the ebsite through october of next year. at a time when we're over $17
trillion in debt and the government continues to borrow and spend at an unsustainable rate, this is simply unacceptable. madam speaker, the unworkability of this website goes beyond error messages and technical problems. it is vulnerable to security breaches as well. in late october, center for medicare and medicaid services' memo showed that the administration officials were concerned that due to the lack of testing healthcare.gov had potential high security risks, and yet they went ahead and launched the website anyways. when an individual uses the website to sign up, they enter much of their personal information such as social security number and address and so forth, and many individuals who have problems with the website may have entered it several times. and they could be a victim of fraud or identity theft if the website is not secure. madam speaker, it is out of concern for the security of people's personal information on healthcare.gov that i've introduced h.r. 3652, the no
identity theft in health care act, which will increase penalties for navigators or other agency employees who commit identity theft by using information submitted for the purposes of signing up for obamacare. under current federal law, aggravated identity theft carries a two-year sentence. my bill would increase the penalty to five years in prison for those who use your sensity information that's been submitted for the purposes of signing up for health care. many agency employees who have been tasked with implementing the law and processing americans' sensitive personal information have not gone through background checks or even before thoroughly screened. my bill would deter navigators and others with access to sensitive information through obamacare from stealing the identities of americans who are simply trying to pick a health care plan. madam speaker, we need to do what we can to protect the american people from this harmful law, starting with the
security of their personal information. the problems with the website do not overshadow the problems with the law itself because the real issues with obamacare go far beyond an unworkable website. i've heard from many of my constituents about their canceled plans, increased cost of premiums and that they are being offered less choice about which doctors that they can see. we need to continue to work towards patient-oriented reforms and focus on protecting the american people from this harmful law. madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. quigley, for five minutes. mr. quigley: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, every day nearly 2,500 flights land and take off at o'hare international airport at the western edge of the fifth congressional district. more than 66 million passengers boreded or deplaned at o'hare in 2012. on a recent morning, f.a.a. traffic controllers kept tabs
of 7,300 flights in the immediate area. by any measure, o'hare is integral to the nation's commercial air traffic network, and just as it shapes the nation's air traffic system, o'hare plays a major role in the local and regional economies. o'hare currently generates 450,000 jobs and $38 billion in economic activity for chicago and the state of illinois. and when the $9 billion effort to modernize o'hare is completed in 2020 it will mean the creation of 195,000 more jobs and additional $18 billion in annual economic activity. in my district alone, more than 12,000 constituents had jobs tied to the airport. but o'hare's success comes at a price. since the october 17 opening of a new runway at o'hare, many constituents have experienced a dramatic rise in flights and noise over their homes. some residents are now dealing with hundreds more flights over
their homes all day every day. it's not just the new runway that's causing the increase in noise pollution. because of a dramatic reconfiguration of airspace over o'hare, the majority of flights either arriving or departing o'hare now traverse the skies over the fifth district. i understand and support the need to modernize o'hare. the new parallel runway configuration means more safer, more efficient operations and fewer delays, but i also derstand the need for silent neighborhoods. hardworking people have built their lives and invested much of their earnings into their homes in forest glen, north park and harwood heights. my constituents worry that their peace of mind and property values are being eroded in the name of profits and air traveler convenience. as one constituent told me, we can no longer open our sdose,
enjoy eating outside on our new front porch or gardening. madam speaker, i agree, neighbors should not be exiled because of commercial aircraft. i also believe if we take the right steps, maintaining a vibrant neighborhood won't be incompatible with the safe and efficient o'hare. since o'hare became part of my district in january, i pushed for important changes that can bring relief to residents in the near term. i've advocated that o'hare continue to use all available runways to mitigate the increase in air traffic and route aircraft over industrial areas, parks, not over residents' back-yards. but we need to do more. they -- backyards. but we need to do more. we need to determine how much noise is acceptable. the so-called 65 d.n.l. is outdated and woefully
incomplete at measuring the impact of unabated noise overhead. i know the f.a.a. has been studying and reviewing the 65 d.n.l. metric for years. it's time to stop studying this 30-year-old relic and take action. so, too, must the city of chicago and the airlines. the city has told it will not revisit its flight quiet runway program until the modernization is completed in 2020. there may be obstacles in reviewing this program, but the airport needs to address the needs of these residents. airlines, too, must help. they'll save millions in lower operating costs as delays at o'hare decrease. a portion of these savings should be earmarked for neighborhood soundproofing efforts. the airlines must also get quieter, quicker. that's why i just introduced the silent skies bill which will accelerate the airlines' use of quieter aircraft. madam speaker, i know the o'hare modernization plan is
here to say and i know air traffic noise like noise from expressways and the l are a way of life in our metropolitan area. but this makes chicago and its suburbs special. we must make sure that the vitality of our neighborhoods isn't drowned out in the roar of aircraft overhead. hank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from mississippi, mr. nunnelee, for five minutes. mr. nnelee: thank you, speaker. the legislative fellowship is a selective mid career education program where the air force places the very best, brightest officers and civilians in congressional offices so they may learn the legislative process. for this past year, my office was given the opportunity to host lieutenant colonel will vaughn. prior to the start of serving his fellowship, lieutenant
colonel vaughn was part of the 97th flying squadron, a unit supporting the utey national euro joint training program at shepard air force base in texas. he's also served on a joint interagency and multinational staff in jerusalem as a plans and programs officer for the united states security coordinator for israel and palestinian authority. he served on active duty flying f-16 and t-37 until 2008 where he transitioned to the reserves and most recently the t-6. lieutenant colonel will vaughn has effectively served the people of mississippi, and, mr. speaker, i look forward to watching him do great things for america. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, for five minutes. .
without objection. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, the time has come for our military to leave afghanistan. afghan president karzai's refusal to sign a bilateral security agreement should be the last straw in putting an end to what has become america's longest war. after more than 12 years, hundreds of billions of dollars, and over 2,100 american service men and women killed in combat, it is time to bring all of our troops home now. in poll after poll the american people have made it clear that they want our troops home. certainly our brave men and women in uniform and their families have done everything that we have asked of them and more. we must not ask them to continue to fight, bleed, and die in afghanistan for another 10 or 12 years to support a government more interested in extorting america and ripping off our tax dollars than in working with us to strengthen its own security.
mr. speaker, president obama needs to turn this conflict over to the afghans. as of yesterday 2,153 members of our armed forces have died in afghanistan since 2001. another 19,526 have been wounded. and every member of this chamber knows that tens of thousands of our troops have returned home with invisible wounds to their minds and spirits. suicide rates among our veterans are among the highest ever and they continue to climb. for many, the care required to help heal these wounds will last a lifetime. it is estimated that health care and veterans benefits for the men and women deployed in iraq and afghanistan will cost trillions of dollars. in both human and fiscal terms, we simply cannot afford to waste more lives and dollars in afghanistan. the president has not made a case about how any number of troops remaining in afghanistan
after 2014 can improve the competence of afghan forces when our current greater and more intensive engagement over the past decade has not been able to do so. it is completely unclear whether the april elections will improve the afghan government given its ingrown corruption, sectarian divisions, and taliban insurgency. there are no compelling reasons to remain. we need to turn afghanistan over to the afghans now, not 10 years from now. we need to bring our troops home by no longer than the end of 2014, just as president obama promised. if this is the so-called zero option, then it is the best option. we do not need to keep another 10 to 12,000 american troops in afghanistan for another 10 years at the cost of about $80 billion or more each year. they will continue to be in harm's way. they will continue to be carrying out dangerous operations. they will continue to be wounded, body and soul, and they
will continue to be killed. for what? so one of the most corrupt governments in the world can continue living off of our blood and treasure? so military contractors can continue lining their pockets? we are cutting programs right and left in the budget, but we are supposed to keep pouring tens of billions of dollars into afghanistan for another decade? all of it is borrowed money charged to our national credit card. i say enough is enough. in june, 305 members of this house voted in support of an amendment that i offered along with congressman walter jones and adam smith to bring our troops home by the end of 2014, and to accelerate that process if possible. it clearly stated that if the president determined to keep u.s. troops in afghanistan after 2014, then congress should vote on authorizing that mission. senators murkly and lee were ready to offer a similar amendment when the defense bill was to be taken up over there. they had more than a dozen bipartisan co-sponsors on their
amendment. but instead the f.y. 2014 ndaa went into conference negotiations without debate by the full senate. and those negotiations, the principal senate conferees demanded the house amendment be completely watered-down. the conference language only requires that the president to, quote, consult with congress about any post-2014 deployment of troops. that's worthless. absolutely worthless, mr. speaker. we don't need consultation. what we need is a vote. i call on speaker boehner and leader pelosi to take seriously the call of 305 members of this house and schedule a vote next year on keeping thousands of u.s. troops in afghanistan. whether or not you support such a decision, the house needs to vote on it. it is time for us in congress to do our job. it is time we stopped asking our troops and their families to sacrifice their lives in a war that has outlived its purpose.
it is time to bring our troops home. it is time to get out of afghanistan. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia, mr. wolf, for five minutes. mr. wolf: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, yesterday marked the 15th month anniversary of the benghazi attack. once again another anniversary has come and gone with no new answers about what happened that night, or just what some many americans reportedly, around two dozen, were doing at a secret c.i.a. base in benghazi to begin with. another anniversary has come and gone with no new public hearings. by nigh micount the last public hearing was held on september 18, nearly three months ago, and no new public hearings are being held. the key word is public. perhaps most important, another anniversary has come and gone with absolutely no one being held responsible for the security and intelligence failures leading up to the attack, and no one has been brought to justice. despite nefrl recent
developments related to the benghazi investigation, practically nothing has been done in congress to address them. first, we have recently learned that c.i.a. director, john brennan, distorted the facts in letters to the house intelligence committee and me when he claimed that benghazi survivors were not made to sign new nondisclosure agreements. in another major development on november 24 article published reported surpliesing new comments by kevin kolbe, the f.b.i.'s lead investigator for benghazi stating for the first time that the f.b.i. arrived on the scene in benghazi within days not weeks of the attack. according to the article by kerry pickett, "the washington post" reported that the f.b.i. had people algiers in cairo, a team could not get into benghazi two days after the attack, kolbe disputes this. he says we were there. is agent kolbe correct? was the f.b.i. secretly on the ground in benghazi within days
of the attack? if so, why is this being kept quiet from the public? once again the congress should know. and to my knowledge has never asked agent kolbe to publicly testify. equally important, why is it that we are learning that these comments before a paying audience of $400 a ticket? you had to pay $400 to hear this guy speak, but he's never spoken for free to the american people. just like the american people heard new information about that night from retired general hawn hen he appeared again at a big-ticket event at aspen. if you paid the money in aspen you got they're. i guess there is no need to tell congress and public what happened that night since paying audiences will hear through conferences, through books, and maybe even a movie. finally, i return to my concerns first raised on the house floor in july that the large c.i.a. base in benghazi may have been used to support covert
operations with regard to syria, including a possible transfer of weapons collected in libya to serve rebels, possibly in coordination with third parties of foreign contry, particularly saudi arabia. these concerns need to be addressed now more than ever after reports yesterday that both the u.s. and united kingdom have cut off support to rebels in northern syria along the turkish border as the islamic front, a coalition of fighters, overran bases run by the free syrian army and seized youed -- seized the weapons and resources. the u.s. and european countries have reportedly facilitated secret arms shipments to syrian rebels. allegedly including anti-aircraft weapons, commonly referred to mpads, just like the weapons collected in libya the last two years. a separate "washington post" article stated, quote, a covert c.i.a. program provided lethal aid to the rebels, consisting most of small arms and
ammunition channel. it is particularly noteworthy that during the same period of time the c.i.a. was operating in benghazi and u.s. weapons collection in libya were under way. respected national security reporter wrote august 1, 2012, quote, president obama has signed a secret order authorizing u.s. support for rebels seeking to dispose syrian president assad and his government. u.s. sources familiar with the matter said, obama order approval earlier this year and known as an intelligence quote finding broadly permits the c.i.a. and other agents provide support. a u.s. government support acknowledged on the provision of the presidential finding, the united states collaborating with the secret command center operated by turkey and its allies, and nbc news said shoulder fired missiles have been delivered to the rebels via
turkey. are these the same secret arm shipments seized by the islamic extremists in northern syria? have these weapons transferred with alleged u.s. covert support been used to kill innocent civilians, christians, and muslims? don't the american people have a right to know if their tax dollars are being spent to supply islamic extremists with weapons? we need a select committee. the current process is not working. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan, mr. kildee, for five minutes. thank you, mr. speaker. unfortunately this republican-controlled congress has been one of the least productive congresses in modern times. recently the speaker of the house actually said, and i
quote, we have done our work. this year we passed only 56 bills. that's sad and that's wrong. this month we are in session here on this floor for only eight days. important issues continue to pile up, unresolved, unanswered, and yet tomorrow we are getting ready to leave for the rest of the year, even as the senate will continue to work on behalf of the american people. the list of what we have not done is much longer than what we have passed. we need to stay here and get the work of the american people done. we haven't taken up a jobs and infrastructure bill. we could do that next week. we have not passed a long-term budget deal that tackles the big issues that we face. we have not voted on comprehensive immigration reform despite the fact that a majority
would support immigration reform, all we need to do is bring it to the floor. we could do that next week. we haven't done our work to extend unemployment compensation for 1.3 million americans who will lose their benefits on december 28. yet we are going to leave this body having failed to act to protect the livelihood of 1.3 million americans. that's just wrong. we haven't considered raising the minimum wage despite the economic boon it would mean to our economy giving millions of working class people more purchasing power, supporting business, and supporting economic growth. and we have a farm bill. a bipartisan farm bill. sure it's got some problems. i don't know how everybody would note on it. but it ought to come to the floor of the house for a yes or no vote. we could do that next week. the list goes on. unfortunately it is completely
fair to characterize this republican-led house as a do-nothing congress. sometimes, though, it seems as though the things that we have actually done have only made things worse. in march, we allowed the harmful across-the-board sequester cuts to go into effect. nobody here tried to stop them. on our side we tried to stop them. nobody did anything on the other side. those draconian cuts went into effect, slowed economic growth, cost hundreds of thousands of americans their jobs. in october the gridlock and dysfunction shut down the federal government for two weeks. the first such shutdown in two decades. that cost this economy $24 billion. we can't let that happen in the future. i'm only a freshman. just finishing my first year in congress, but can i tell you one thing i know, this is no way to run this government. we've got to get back to
legislating. doing the work of the american people the way the framers of this government intended it to be done. you can kind of go back, some of you might remember squgs schoolhouse rock, how a bill becomes a law" the house passes a bill, the senate does its work, passes a bill, we go to conference, we work out the differences, and send that on to the president for his signature or for a veto. that's wait we legislate. yet we continue to lurch from crisis to crisis and not let the will of the american people be manifest in the laws that we write. my constituents and all americans deserve a congress that is serious about the work of the american people and ready to get to work to grow our economy, to support manufacturing, to strengthen the middle class. . i'm proud to work in a bipartisan fashion, i'm sure most of us do, now is not the time for more delay. now is certainly not the time
for a vacation. look, i'd love to be able to go home and spend the next couple weeks with my family. you know, we spend a lot of time away from home, but the folks that we represent expect us to get our work done. so i, mr. speaker, am one who am willing to stay here. let's come back to work on monday, and let's stay here until we get this important work done. let's take the make it in america agenda to support american manufacturing, let's bring it to the floor. if you don't want to vote for it, don't vote for it, but we ought to consider these important pieces of legislation that's important to our economy and not leave town without taking up the important work that we're charged with doing. i represent flint, saginaw, bay city, older industrial cities that helped build the manufacturing base of our economy. they depend on the congress to do the work that we were sent here to do. we shouldn't go home.
we should stay here and finish our work. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison, for five minutes. , for lison: mr. speaker 34 years, 34 years the united states and iran have had no diplomatic relations. iran has escalated its nuclear weapons program and hostile rhetoric. the united states has upped sanctions and threats of military force. there can be little doubt that when our diplomats and politicians say all options are on the table we mean military force. and yet today, under the leadership of president obama, we have an opportunity to change all that. to avoid the prospect of war or a nuclear armed iran. we have a chance to set a new
course, a new path instead of the collision course. we have an offramp, an offramp to peace, diplomacy and international cooperation, and we must take it. this is our best opportunity in 30 years to advance the interests of the united states vis-a-vis iran. it's our best chance to make sure that the middle east is of and safe as possible nuclear weapons. the iranian people defied the odds and elected a moderate president, hassan rouhani. president rouhani has condemned the inflammatory rhetoric of mock mude ahmadinejad. he's prom -- mahmoud ahmadinejad. he's promised to work with the west. the united states and iran are negotiating, talking, and this is a good thing.
this is the way countries should pursue their interests. this is the way to avoid war. through diplomacy, the united states and its allies have frozen iran's nuclear program for the first time in more than a decade. the agreement imposes daily inspections to ensure iran will not develop a nuclear weapon. and iran has made agreements to move this process forward. ending our decades' long cold war with iran isn't going to happen overnight but through robust sustained diplomacy, we may prevent an iranian nuclear weapon and disastrous war and spare thousands of our children and theirs from a horrible situation. we cannot achieve these goals if congress undermines these negotiations, and i have supported sanctions in the past. in fact, i have a very good friend and constituent who is in the chamber today who has supported sanctions, and she
was born and raised in iran, very concerned about the human rights situation there and has informed me over the years about the best position i might take and she also says now is not the time to hit the accelerator, it is time to let diplomacy work. these sanctions would undermine the confidence of our international friends, the united states, germany, france, are all part of this negotiation with iran. and if we up sanctions while we claim that we want to work with them to have a reduction in nuclear weaponry in iran, they may well see this as a break of -- a breach with them which could set us all back. it has not been easy to get iran and russia to the table. to iran, russia and china to the table. we have them there. let's not lose this chance. new sanctions stand to kill any
hope for diplomacy. iran's foreign minister has said that if congress imposes new sanctions, the entire deal is dead. is that what we want? new sanctions will not increase our negotiating power. if they would the white house certainly would have told us so. in fact, the white house has warned that new sanctions will undermine negotiations. negotiations over the next six months are the only way to guarantee that iran will not develop a nuclear program and will set itself on a path to rejoin the world of nations and this could well improve the human rights situation in iran as it has no justification for the police state which denies uman rights. undercutting diplomacy with new sanctions would put our country on a path to war. the choice is clear, we can try to negotiate a deal that prevents iranian nuclear
weapons and avoids a nuclear conflict or we can dismiss this opportunity, pile on more sanctions, derail more diplomacy and continue on toward war. americans don't want another war. the best way to honor our men and women in uniform is to avoid unnecessary war. my son is active duty military. i'm speaking from a personal place as well. americans support and negotiate a deal a deal with iran by a it 2:1 ratio. passing any punitive measures, including the sense of congress tying the president's hands is a mistake. it will not help, and if congress wants to help, we should set up a people-to-people exchange. we should -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. ellison: a congress-to-congress exchange and move forward. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. members are reminded not to make reference to occupants of the gallery. the chair will remind all persons in the gallery that they are here as guests of the
house and any manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings is in violation of the rules of the house. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. murphy, for five minutes. in a couple days, we will have a moment of silence and respect of the victims of sandy hook elementary. we need to take that moment to pause, reflect and pray. however, afterwards we cannot be silent on the need to get something done, the need to pass comprehensive and meaningful legislation and the need to help the mentally ill. has the change since newtown and our tragedies? sadly, it has done little to et those in need help. it has moved backward in getting the help done. and where there is no help, there is no hope.
we have fewer psychiatric hospital beds, fewer outpatient treatment options, restrictions on the use of medications that canned do help those who are mentally ill. too few psychiatrists and psychologists and clinical social workers, and especially ones who are trained and specialized in treating the seriously mentally ill. we have too many barriers that prevent doctors from communicating with parents of the sons and daughters with persistent serious illness. we have federal barriers that block treatment, federal dollars that do not go to grant programs that work. the national institutes of mental health have insufficient money to engage in needed research. first responders who are called to deal with mental health crises have little or no training on what to do and they miss critically important actions. treatment delayed is treatment denied, and where there is no help, there is no hope. today i'm introducing the helping families of mental health crisis act. it increases access to trained
professionals at community health centers and community mental health centers. it increases money on programs that work and gets to the people that need it in communities and not to remain in bureaucracies. it reforms government spending to eliminate waste and refocuses on getting evidence-based help. it brings object tift to the mental health administration. it opens up the door to communication between doctors and parents and legal guardians of those with mental illness. it increases in-patient treatment options and availability. no more being told there are no more bed, take your son or daughter no matter how much they are at risk of hurting you or themselves. it increases pharmaceutical treatment options. it reduces the warehousing of our persistently and seriously mental ill in jails or homelessness. it increases primary care doctors, license health practitioners. it increases mental health courts. it provides training for first
responders and gathers essential and critical information on the relationship of mental health and violence and victimization. bottom line, if we want to change these trends in victimization of the mentally ill and the persistently mentally ill, if we want to reduce the high number of sue sides, homicides and assaults, -- the nt people to millions number of friends and families who are emotionally strained if we want to prevent the newtowns, tucsons, auroras, pittsburghs and columbines, we have to do something comprehensive, research-based and we have to do it now. what we need is not only for congress to act, but during these next few weeks, while congressmen and women are back home, we need to hear from every doctor and first responder and teacher and parent and patient and consumer that we must act thoroughly and thoughtfully and must act now. those who need the help the most have the most trouble getting the help they need and where there is no help there is no help.
we can and must and we will take mental illness out of the shadows of ignorance, despair, neglect and into that bright light of hope. so i ask my colleagues to support this bill, helping families in mental health crisis act, because treatment and action delayed is treatment denied. let us help american families get the help they need because where there is no help there is no hope. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota, mr. nolan, for five minutes. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. nolan: mr. speaker, members of the house, we're in the closing hours of the first year , and the h congress pundn'tities who examine congresses past and present say
this is the most unaccomplished congress in the history of the country. we've passed a total of 56 bills here in this congress. the fact is we've taken 239 days off, and we've worked 133 days. and let's be honest with ourselves here. those 133 days often included a monday or a tuesday where we came in at 6:30 in the evening and took a handful of votes on some noncontroversial issues. where most of us come from, thatess not a day's work. by the same token, more often than not, we left on a thursday or a friday somewhere after taking a few votes that morning and then heading back to wherever we were headed. back in 1948, harry truman got elected as president of the united states by campaigning
against the do nothing 80th congress in 1948. well guess what. that congress passed over 900 bills. and we're looking at 56 here at the halfway mark. i can't imagine -- i can't begin to imagine how history is going to evaluate this congress. "the wall street journal" said -- and i quote -- this congress is long on partisanship, indecision and brinksmanship. others have constantly referred to the fact that most of what is done here and considered here in the past year has been political posturing in preparation for the next election. to be fair, we have accomplished some things here. the middle class tax cut, hurricane sandy relief, the violence against women act. we passed a couple of
appropriations bills, and we may be on the brink here of actually passing a budget bill, which would be most important and quite an accomplishment. nd not to mention, we formally recognized soapbox derby days and allowed hunters to buy their duck stamps online. mr. speaker, the fact is we're not getting the job done, and the fact also remains that in this country the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer. the middle class in this country is getting crushed. we're looking at large deficits and broken priorities and a broken government and we're not addressing those issues of our time. . i did a little research. i have the unique perspective of having served some 32 years ago, and at that time we had between 7,000 andle,000 subcommittee, full committee, conference committee hearings, markups, and
meetings. this congress by contrast has had 500. most of those were procedural. and rules committee meetings. the speaker himself said that we need to return to regular order in this country if we are going to get things done. regular order for those who don't know means going to work five days a week like everybody else in america. it means working full days. it means fully engaging the subcommittees and the full committees and all the members of the congress, because when we do that, that's when we get things done. when we sit down and we have open, bipartisan discussions, everybody gets their amendment, everybody gets an opportunity to exhaust all of arguments, everybody gets a vote that's how people come together. that's how you get things done. that's how you fix things. and that's the way the congress operated for several hundred years, and that's not the way it's operating today. mr. speaker, my fellow colleagues, if we are going to
get things done and reverse the terrible reputation of this congress, i implore the speaker and the leadership and all of the members to demand that starting in january of next year, we restore regular order. we go to work five days a week. we employ the subcommittee and the full committee process that has worked so well for so many hundreds of years in this country. because that's how we get things done. that's how we fix things here in this country. that's how we get our economy back on a pro-growth trajectory, and that's how we restore the people's confidence in our what is now a broken government and broken congress. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until noon today.
over. >> very actively dissuading international oil companies and others who think that now may be a time to test the waters in iran. secretary lieu -- lou over the past several weeks -- lew has met over hundreds of banks to make the point our sanctions remain in place. we have been meeting with foreign companies, foreign banks, foreign businesses around the world, to our embassies and through teams from here going out. i'm traveling next week to reinforce this point. we are doing everything possible to make sure that no one misunderstands that our sanctions remain in place and that we intend to enforce them. anybody who tests us will be taking a very, very serious risk. >> will you on a regular basis notify the senate of countries or companies that are not complying strictly even if -- or
at least their compliance is suspect? you might not have sufficient evidence for some time of enforcement action, but it would be extremely helpful if the information was public of which countries were standing with us and which were not. >> i commit to being available to this committee at any time and communicating with this committee on these issues. i think it's enormously important that we all work together on this issue. >> i've got very little time left. this might be too big a topic, ut in the issue of the preliminary agreement, there was no -- there was suggestions about the military progress. can you very quickly give us very quickly a sense of what we are at? >> there's three places in the agreement that speak to the
possible military dimensions of iran's program. the first paragraph it talks about having the conference agreement address all remaining concerns. that is a reference to their possible military dimensions. it talks about the need to address past and present practices, which is the iaea terminology for a possible military dimensions, plug paragraph chant. it also says the you u.n. security council resolutions must be addressed before an agreement is agreed to. and the u.n. security council resolution specifically addressed their ballistic missile capability. we have had very direct conversations with iran about all of these. they understand completely the meaning of the words in this agreement, and we intend to support the iaea in its efforts deal with possible military events. >> senator corker. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank each of you for your
testimony and work. i think all of us want to see a diplomatic solution to iran and have been encouraged by the fact that the administration has been dealing with them in this way. i think what has shocked folks has been the text of the interagreement. i think it calls many of us to want to become involved. the former nuclear czar has said based on the interim agreement was negotiated what he actually sees is a series of rolling agreements that go on for a long, long time. i think what congress, the reason congress has been wishing to weigh in, is to try to make sure that we get to an end state that's appropriate and do so over a very short amount of time, which to me seems to be a very reasonable place for congress to want to be. i would like to ask you this, when does the clock, when do they actually start, very succinctly? >> sure. senator, our experts are in
vienna this week working with the p-5 plus one, iaea and iran to determine that start date and to make sure that the sequence happens in the order in which we all believe it should. >> we joshte a six-month agreement a month ago but we don't know when the actual start day is? >> it will happen in the next few weeks. i don't want to set a date today because they are finalizing the discussion. >> mr. levin in meeting at the white house suggested to keep us from being in a series of rolling agreements that we ensure that this interim agreement has an end date in six months. that six months hasn't begun. but instead of that, you guys agree to six months, six months deal, and i'm just, again, you can understand why folks on our side would be concerned because we understand sort of the elements of the program. let me ask you this. if arac, i know it cannot be
commissioned, but it's my understanding based on a document that work can continue on the elements of this plutonium facility, is that correct? >> none of the issues that would make iraq function as a nuclear reactor can move forward. >> i understand. >> they could build a road. they could put up a wall. >> a country that is interested in peaceful activities only with a plutonium facility of its size that has no commercial purpose, doesn't that raise a little bit of an antenna they are continuing to do those things? i mean people generally act in their own self-interest. why would an economically starved country blow money on a plutonium facility that has no commercial interest if their intentions are good? >> senator, we agree with you. there is no reason i can see that a 40-megawatt heavy water reactor has a peaceful purpose i know of.
we have been very clear with iran that this will have to be addressed in full in any comprehensive agreement. >> let me ask you this. the u.n. security council resolution i think, i know this administration negotiated one element of the agreement, actually, in 2010. why within the four corners of this agreement are we already agreeing to things tacitly that are in opposition to the u.n. security council agreement? i think that's what has everybody alarmed. we have tacitly agreed to the fact that iran will be enriching down the road. i think you know we negotiate all kinds of one, two, three agreements around the world. we try to get to a gold standard. here we have a rogue nation, a rogue nation that is wreaking havoc, that is using a portion of our sanctions proceeds to kill people in syria. you know that. they are using a portion of this to funnel it to hezbollah to
kill neem syria. i guess i don't understand why you would already agree on the front end to them not having the gold stand standard, if you roll -- gold standard, if you will. we don't let vietnam and others do that. why have we done that? that raises alarms that a lot of people think that senator kerry, secretary kerry is so anxious to make a deal for lots of legacy reasons, he's willing to overlook some of the details that are so important. why have we done this? >> let me say several things, senator. first of all we have not conceded anything. the competitive agreement nothing is agreed to -- >> if i could. you don't think that any preamble where we talk about -- you don't think -- let me put it this way, do the officials in iran think that we have agreed to allowing them to enrich? every press statement they have
made says that. how could there be such a big misunderstanding over such an important issue? >> what i was about to say, senator, is nothing is agreed to in a final agreement until everything is agreed to. what we have said to iran and what this says is that, yes, we will talk with them about the potential for a very limited enrichment program, matched to practical needs, with staggering constraints, among torg and verification. if, if, if they agree to everything else that we want agreed to. that is totally consistent with the u.n. security council resolution which does not talk about stopping enrichment, it talks about suspending enrichment and saying once the iaea and others confirm that iran has met all its responsibilities and obligations it could be treated like any other n.p.t. state. it's not about ending, it's about suspending enrichment. that said, senator, i completely agree with you. we all do that there are many
questions here about what iran is up to. that is why the secretary of state, the president of the united states, in his address at the sabahn forum as well as the secretary's said we are quite septical whether we'll get to the comprehensive agreement that we wish to see, but we must test iran because that's how we keep the international community together. that's how, if we have to choose other options, we will have the international community with us to do so. >> mr. chairman, i just want to make one quick statement in closing. do think that we are stepping away from fsm these u.n. security council agreements. i think what congress wants to see happen is that not occur. i think that's you have seen such a reaction. i realize we are going to a rope-a-dope here in the senate and we are not going to do anything. i understand that's sort of
baked in the blockage and i know we are participating in a little bit of a rope-a-dope today. i just want to say to david cohen, i was just in the region and i concur with senator reed. once you begin loosening sanctions and people begin to see that iran is now going to become not a rogue country but part of the international community, we are basically creding much of -- creeding much of middle eastern activities to them. we have been now for about a year, once they see that there is a rush, as senator reed mentioned, to do business with them, and i think that's why we are all concerned. we did an interim deal that has no sacrifice on their part whatsoever, none. they are still spending 19,000 centrifuges every single day. they are not going to violate this agreement. it's an outstanding agreement for them because in six months they are going to be a normal, international entity. i don't see any way you hold the
sanctions, but, again, we are disappointed but hopeful that somehow you can put the genie back in the bottle and end up with some type of agreement that averts warfare, because all of us do want to see this succeed, we don't know how we get there with an interim deal framed the way this one is. thank you. . >> all members are now required to report to the senate floor for two votes. a tor menendez has ommittee hearing or markup uite soon. >> mr. chairman, i understand it's 15 minutes in this vote so my five minutes would be more than enough.
>> ok. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have been pursuing iran since 1996 when i learned as a member of the house foreign affairs committee that the united states was sending voluntary contributions to the iaea in advance -- in addition to our membership dues whose voluntary contributions were going for what? bash ar nuclear facility. that was not in the national interest and security of the united states. i led an effort to stop that. now, i have been continuing to pursue iran for 17 years when it wasn't in the spotlight. and what i have seen is iran deceive, delay and over various administrations march forward to the point that it seems we are now ready to accept some form of an enrichment program in iran. and so some of us are very skeptical, not because of wide-eyed skepticism because of reality of what is the history so far. and i have to say part of my challenge in trying to listen
to the administration is some of the same statements i heard in the past. i was looking at a transcript of the senate foreign relations committee in december of 1991. many of the arguments i heard then against the pursuit of any sanctions regime is the ones i'm hearing now. let me quote from the transcript. secretary cohen, the concern we have this amendment, which is the menendez-kirk amendment, is that we think it risks two things we want to avoid. one is that it risks fracturing the international coalition that has been built up over the last several years to bring pressure on iran. and we rather consider voluntary action against the central bank of iran rather than to the threat of coercion that is contained in your amendment. you went on to say we think that to be clear our judgment of the best course to pursue at this time is not to apply a mechanism that puts at risk the largest financial institutions, the central bank of some of our
closest allies. and you went on to say, our position is that the right course is not to adopt this amendment. now, you know, that's basically what i heard then. that amendment went on to pass 100-0, and it is one of the things that you all, the administration heralds today as the essence of what has gotten iran to the negotiating table. so you'll forgive me if i having heard many of the same arguments, we will break our international coalition, we will not have partners, that has been the arguments as of two years ago and it is the arguments today. of o look at the question what is really this interim agreement or plan of action all about and what we hear is versus what the iranians say. the iranians say in published ports, quote, iran said that
according to the agreement, the text of the agreement, iran would not make further advances of activities. it said any further advances of this activities at the iraq reactor. and then zarif told the parliament in translated commons that it means no nuclear fuel will be produced but construction will continue there. now, you say a road or a wall. the reality is if you can continue to construct all the elements except for the nuclear core, that is a fundamental difference. and it is not significant. especially if our view is that iraq really isn't to be allowed at the end of the day, why would we allow them to even move toward any form of construction which puts a greater and greater investment on their part to achieve their ultimate goal? then, we see today that the a rocket re launching
next week, and though this was supposedly made at their space program, it's well-known that this is just a cover for military ballistic weapons program. i think that's a provocative action in the midst of such negotiations, should be interpreted as a sign of bad faith and only reaffirms in our mind why we need to proceed with some efforts here. so i'm beginning increasingly -- i know i have been a proponent of pursuing additional sanctions prospectively at a time frame beyond the scope of the intended six months' period that we think is an insurance policy, but i'm beginning to think based upon all of this maybe what the senate needs to do is define the end game and at least what it finds as acceptable as the final status because i'm getting nervous about what i perceive will be
acceptable to us as the final status versus what in fact i think -- when i say to us, meaning the administration, versus what the congress might view as acceptable. it may be defining that through a resolution. maybe a course of action that would affect the ultimate outcome here which is obviously the most important one. so i just want to put in the record my skepticism based on the history that we've had here. one for 17 years, the other maybe more recent, but i've heard many of these arguments and they are the arguments, nonetheless, that have had the senate act and have actually helped the administration achieve some of its goals. >> we will resume the hearing immediately following the votes. this hearing is in recess. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national able satellite corp. 2013]
>> you can watch the senate banking committee hearing in its entirety at c-span.org. now we're going to take you live to house democratic leader nancy pelosi, giving her weekly briefing, speaking about the budget agreement. >> finally brought the violence against women act to the floor. over 60% of them voted against it but they brought it to the floor. all we want is a vote. all we want is a vote on unemployment insurance. all we want is a vote on immigration. all we want is a vote on background checks, on the living wage -- raising the minimum wage. that's all we want is a vote and let congress work its will. so again with this one what the intention of the republicans, it would be very interesting. some of them have said to me, i don't think people should get those checks. which i found to be appalling, but nonetheless i was struck by
the cannedor that someone would even think it -- candor that someone would even think it, much less say it. that's what the american people know, if you're working hard, playing by the rules, and you lose your job because somebody sends a company overseas or the downturn in the economy, whatever it happens may be, or in your particular industry, you're just out there to dry? that's not really what our country is about. so especially at this holiday season i would hope that at least whatever it is that is their intention that they let the american people know and let's have that as part of the national debate and that's one we will take great pride to participate in. travel the country as i do, one of the most beautiful things to see is the strength of the work ethic in our country. people work so hard and they work hard to make the future etter for their children and
future generations of their family. they work hard to -- i could tell you chapter and verse of them working noon and night and their kids getting college and beyond education and succeeding in ways that makes them proud and that really is the american way and that work ethic is part of who we are as a people and it's something that should be respected. in some ways the poorer you are the harder you work because you're doing two jobs and the rest so that your children can have a better future and that's a good thing for america. so in any event, discussion on raising the minimum wage takes me back to when women succeeds, america succeeds. when we pass an increase in the minimum wage, almost 2/3 of the people making minimum wage are women. pay equity. why can't we pass that? we passed it in the house,
60-vote requirement, senate blocked it there when we had the majority. if you are working side by side with male counterpart with equal education and responsibility in your job, in many places in our country, most places in our country, women are working the first three months of the year for free because they make on average 77% of what a male counterpart makes with same education, same responsibility, same job. same timing. valuing specting work, work. as i say, women are especially affected by that. paid sick leave, childcare, all these things, we could have had a strong -- early childhood learning piece in this sequestration which would have been so good for america's future. so there are really some missed opportunities. but nonetheless, get this off the table, let's go forward and have these debates without the heat of battle and also without
any uncertainty about whether we are going to have a budget so that other people can have their budgets, that businesses can plan and that government can function. i'll see you all later at the party -- if you choose to come. [laughter] >> coming up in about 20 minutes, john boehner, the house speaker, is expected to also have remarks, his weekly legislative briefing, and we hope to bring that to you live at, again, 11:30 a.m. eastern here on c-span. the house is back at noon today. when they return, they will begin work on the two-year federal budget agreement released earlier this week. it reduces the sequester budget cuts and as a result increases overall federal spending. but it still cuts a number of programs and increases some fees. also today, the house will begin work on a short-term farm
bill extension. we'll have live coverage of the house here on c-span when members return at noon eastern too im. in the meantime, while -- noon eastern time. in the meantime, while we wait for speaker john boehner, a portion of today's "washington journal" when we heard how members may vote on that budget agreement. host: and we're back with congressman kurt schrader, democrat of oregon. he sits on the budget. guest: that's right. host: what do you think of this two-year deal that you'll vote later on today? guest: not a lot, to be honest. it doesn't look like it will accomplish a lot. it only deals with the sequester. calling it a budget deal is calling it more than what it is. it cancels some of the sequester upfront but adds some on the back end. i was looking at a chart and it doesn't talk about the providers, health care providers are having the sequester extended on them for
another two years as part of this deal. host: so what would you like to see happen? guest: well, i think like every american, i would like to see congress step up and do the right thing and put some certainty back in the budget process. right now we're having businesses sitting on the sidelines with a lot of cash not making investments because they don't know what our tax policy is, they don't know the full faith and credit of the united states is going to be at risk when we do our debt ceiling discussions. that's what's stifling the economy, that's what's preventing a lot of fox from getting jobs. -- folks from getting jobs. until we have the political courage to step up and make some smart moves, changes in our social safety net and tax reform, we're wasting our time, really wasting our time here. host: are you no vote? guest: i am going to be a no vote later today. i think it's the wrong thing at the wrong time. we're kidding the american people that we're making a big deal. my hat's off to paul and patty for at least getting something done bipartisanly. i mean, that's something to celebrate. it's pretty sad in this down if
a de minimis deal like this that redesueses -- reduces the sequester 20% this year and 30% next year and none the following years is quite sad. host: you would want the sequester to be completely eliminated? guest: the sequester is stifling our economy. you talk to the congressional budget office, o.m.b., they tell you it's half a percentage point off our economic growth right now. it's stifling our economy. it does nothing for the debt and deficit. all my right-wing conservative friends thinks it's the greatest thing in the world. it really doesn't do anything. if you're interested in the long-term debt and deficit, you have to deal with the social safety net programs. host: paul ryan says it will reduce it by $23 billion. guest: most of that $23 billion, per your earlier chart, is by extending the sequester on the back end. it's a gimmick. paul is usually against these gimmicks. i'm surprised he's into this
gimmick. what we're doing right now, the american people should know this we're getting two-year relief from small portion of the sequester and we're paying it with 10 years worth of savings. spending 10 years worth of savings to get a two-year deal, i don't think it makes sense. host: what do you think happens? guest: i think it passes. i think it passes. people in this town, whether you're sitting in your seat or sitting in the halls of congress are desperate to get something done and show ourselves hopefully the advantage of the american people. i've been out in front on being smart about our fiscal policy, doing a little bit bigger deal. i can't vote for this but i think most colleagues will both sides of the aisle. host: what has leadership told you and other democrats about voting today? guest: well, my leadership is not excited about this deal at all. i think there's some split opinions on it. my budget chair, ranking member chris van hollen, is not giving a ringing endorsement to this deal at all. he does point out that the
alternative is potentially going into january 15 and having been presented by the leadership of the house or the republican leadership with continuation of the current sequester which is at an even lower level than this deal they struck the other day. and for a lot of democrats that's unacceptable. host: how do you feel about the deal including higher premiums for federal insurance, for private pensions? it includes the civil federal workers have to pay more into the pension system and military people as well will see their cost of living increase adjusted by 1%. guest: well, i think for such a de minimis deal it's not the right policy. if those sort of sacrifices on the part of our federal workers, men and women in uniform were to be made for a bigger, bigger down payment on our debt and deficit, i think they'd be willing to go there but right now we're picking on
them. the house republican leadership consistently picks on federal employees to say we're going to balance a budget on your back. you may be mad at me as a congress, we're not doing our job. i think that's a fair comment. but picking on federal employees and staff, that's the wrong thing to do. in the context of a bigger deal where you're dealing with the social safety net, you're doing tax reform, i think every single american is willing to step up and sacrifice for the next generation to make sure they have the same benefits and the same opportunities that our generation had. but this deal doesn't do that. host: "washington post" editorial endorses it saying a done deal -- guest: desperate. host: at least a deal exists. guest: that's -- if that's your high water mark for success in congress, so be it. host: up first for you is eric in searedtown, georgia, independent caller. you're on the air for kurt schrader, democrat of oregon. go ahead. caller: yes. three issues i'd like to make real quick. we have a group called third wave of the democratic party. we are progressives.
we don't like this. also, the -- what i'm trying to tell you is this. the budget, this sequestration, you need to check this out. what you guys are doing is taking this discretionary spending from 16% of g.d.p. down to 4% with this ryan budget. basically what you're doing -- this is a newt gingrich-dark army budget. it's going to destroy the economy. take away from the american people. we voted you democrats in. we want you to look out for the people. so basically what i'm saying, you're now putting the united states budget in the bathtub. drip, drip, drip. it is being drowned. if you allow this to happen. if you guys have stand up for something. they have one party and they have the house. you have the senate. this is the same thing they did to bill clinton. they kept pushing stuff through until you guys got weak and gave in to everything. and this is what happened. all we got under bill clinton
was a tax increase. i'm going to finish with this. the very next year after the balanced budget -- when bush got into office, he gave it all back. so it was no good. host: it sounds like congressman schrader might agree with you. guest: i do. i think eric has great points and well informed. i like citizens understanding what's really going on. yeah, this deal is terrible. and the budget stuff that's been talked about, as i said, is pretty small potatoes. we need to do tax reform. right now to be honest with you, the wealthy are not paying their fair share. most of the citizens in my district that have a few dollars are willing to put a few more dollars into the pie. they benefited from the system. but we need to fix that social safety net at the same time. i think most democrats, most republicans do for that matter are concerned about the viability of social security and medicare. we want it to be there for our kids and the next generation. we are not addressing those issues. we are not doing our job. i think eric's right on target
with that. i for one, along with a few others, are willing to push that up a little bit. se with adding new debt with no solutions. what is going to happen in february and march? we have the debt ceiling yet to come. people are going to be confused. there will be an outcry. the budgetot solved problem. we dealt with the sequester. come february and march when the debt ceiling needs to be raised, it will be interesting to see how many republicans vote for this. if they vote for this budget, they will have to raise the debt ceiling. it is going to be fascinating to see what happens. host: terry, republican caller. good morning. caller: i have a couple of things.
everybody likes to put -- point fingers about the sequester being a bad thing. i think that was president obama's thing. more importantly, i was watching c-span and the shenanigans going on in the senate. will they put out the message -- the nomination, the way they're going about it, it is disturbing. you are stacking the deck in the district court. is that fair? to shut down a voice of the senate, the minority. that is mind boggling. host: the talkathon continues in the senate on c-span2. they have been talking all through the night about the judicial nominees. a vote is expected around 9:00 a.m. for the equal opportunity
commissioners renomination over there. guest: the sequester was not an obama thing. .his was set up by congress we did it to ourselves. american people should or ought to know that we did not expect the sequester to take effect. we thought that we were capable of greater things, making the tough decisions on the debt and deficit. that means dealing with the social safety net programs and with tax reform. added1.2 trillion that we to the budget from 2011 through the sequester, that was not supposed to be done by the sequester. we were supposed to use that as a hammer to make sure that we would step up and do the right thing. everyone says we need tax reform. why the hell aren't we doing
that? those,ner we deal with the less drastic action we have to take. why aren't we doing that? outside interest groups, everyone is worried about the election. my colleagues are worried. if they tried to do the right thing, they are in big trouble. my democratic friends, they're going to get beat up as they talk about the safety's -- the safety net program. host: you would put social security on the table for these negotiations? guest: they have to be. it is not about cutting benefits. the payroll taxes out of a. when they do get it up to the 90% level. medicare, we are already using federal income tax. we need to back it. installed inbeen
for a number of years now. we need to fix these programs. we have come out cautionary. why are we not talking about that? that is where the real courage is. that is why these people elect us. they liked us host: host: to do the big thing. maryland and virginia, democratic color. caller: i was interested in the two-year budget deal. i have been unemployed for six months. i finished up with my state. we are trying for an extension through december. nothing to look forward to in january. still in trouble. there is nothing in this budget deal to deal with unemployment insurance. you are not alone. there are a lot of places where it has run out. the economy is not replacing the
jobs that were there before. there is nothing now in the deal. i know that the democratic leadership on the house side has decided to offer amendments into this deal. so far, no takers. host: . retweeted out that extension of unemployment insurance should not be part of the deal. he will push for part of the extension after the new year. guest: i will not happen. -- that will not happen. he will not get 60 votes on the senate side either. this is tough right now. i am of a mixed opinion. who should be getting them? ostensibly, we are three years past the recession. it is still very tough. marilyn is not alone. a lot of folks in my state art struggling to put food on the table.
these are hard-working americans. they need a little bit of help. i am interested in what sort of opportunities we could come up with. at some point, we have to look to taken jobs that were not the jobs we had before. createde safety net has a new class of untouchables who will never find work again. republican caller. caller: thank you for taking my call. you seem to explain the problem very well. you actually identified all of the items that we ought to be dealing with to address the deficit and debt problem. my problem is not just with you. it is with all of congress. you explain things very well. why don't you tell us specific things that you actually do to lower the deficit? other than
taxes, taxes, taxes. that is what i would like snow. guest: that is very fair. during the last shutdown, i was like you. is there any opportunity to actually do something besides raise taxes? is there some alternative or something we can do on a grander scale? down with a small group of folks in congress -- several tea party members and progressive members and some more moderate members like myself. we went through a budget able to and we were identify as a group, unanimously , health-care savings. there is money to be had there. you get republicans and democrats as part of a bigger deal to go forth.
we looked at whether savings would find anything for the next farm bill. that is coming out in january. there is other cautionary that can be done. we see it already in ryan's bill. bickeredart of the deal. -- bigger deal. we have to put some revenue on the table. we need to talk about some sort of gas tax or mild deal. if you want a highway to run on, we have to pay for that. there are things that -- all of those things were on the table. we discussed this. we could agree on doing those things. and some down payments. i hope they will get the job done next year. they get a signal from leadership. our biggest problem right now is
that leadership is not encouraging us to work together. my view is that they are encouraging us to work apart. that is a real problem. host: the washington post reports that this deal means 2014there is more money in -- i higher spending level. it raises revenues. why not vote yes now and find another day two years from now to and sequester? guest: that takes the air out of the balloon. we will not do a darn thing for the next two years to solve the problems they were listeners, all of america cares about. we will do all the talking. we do a lot of talking, but we have no pressure. this deal allows the defense industry off the hook for the
majority of the severe aspects. there is no accident that the defense budget gets $20 billion. that is the number that has been identified by the defense department and others. we have tope that make sure that republicans and democrats are dealing with this is to not pass this deal. if you pass the deal, the air goes out of the balloon. congress will continue to pass deals and congratulate people. as far as meaningful legislation, few and far between. the alternative is for us to step up and do the right thing. it is not a grand bargain. that will not save trillions. maybe a little more. that is a real down payment on getting our country back where it needs to be. if you want to put -- if you are
a budget tear, you want to solve it. you want business to feel that this is the best place in the world to invest. this budget deal will not create more certainty. it will be a drag on the economy. host: illinois, independent caller. caller: good morning. i have called many times before. let's get down to the facts. the gentleman before called it a smokescreen. it definitely is. you want money? put an import tax on all foreign goods coming into our country. we're spending $1 trillion per year on wars that we do not belong in. let them solve their own problems. put that 24% into the import tax. put that into the social security fund. $53 trillion out of medicare --
our country is going broke. are these guys investing our money overseas? the wars are wrong. we do not belong there in the middle east. i do not want to hear from this gentleman here. they are skirting the issues. >> "washington journal" after day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. take you live now to the capitol and a briefing with house speaker john boehner. >> the american people wants to focus on jobs. that's what the house has done this year and that's what we'll continue to do in the new year. just this year we've passed bills related to energy, education, regulation, innovation, health care, workplace flexibility, cybersecurity, job training, to just name a few of the bills. there are literally dozens of
bills sitting in the united states senate awaiting action, and i hope before they get out of town the senate will gets off its rear end and pass some of them. we'll keep that laser focus on jobs in the coming year as we continue to do the oversight that we're expected to do under our constitution. all year long house republicans have been fulfilling our constitutional obligation to provide oversight. i want to thank our committee chairman as well as leader cantor and his team for leading this effort. when we learned that the i.r.s. was improperly targeting conservative groups, we conducted more than 50 interviews and reviewed half a million pages of document related to that one investigation. for losing four americans in a terrorist attack in benghazi, we launched an aggressive ongoing multicommittee investigation to find out what happened and why this administration has not brought those terrorists to justice.
in the leadup to and following the launch of the president's health care law, we've been asking questions that the american people want answers to. why did the president mislead the american people when he promised they could keep their health care plan? why is obamacare forcing americans to lose access to the doctors they like? why are health care premiums and deductibles spiking for so many americans? and what everyone has learned is that the law is a disaster and all this important oversight work will continue into the new year. finally, today later on we'll consider the bipartisan budget act. it's not everything that we wanted, but it advances conservative policy and moves us in the right direction. i want to thank chairman ryan and senator murray for the work that they've done on behalf of the congress and frankly on behalf of the american people. with that --
>> mr. speaker, you've been careful -- what you might or might do on health care reform. what happens if we get to the end of the year and people are finding they're having trouble -- some that thought they had coverage don't have coverage and the president might issue an executive order, what will the republican house do? try to block the president? what's the course of action? >> listen, we spent the last year trying to protect the american people from the consequences of this health care law. and if you look toward next year, we're going to continue to lock for ways to protect the american people from what's happening out there. but as you've seen, the house has acted 50 times over the last couple of years to try to protect the american people. none of these bills have moved through the united states senate. all of them drew veto threat from the white house.
elections have consequences. >> is that enough to rely on that? we tried to defund, we tried to repeal 50 times when the political situation and operational situation is different come january versus where it was when obamacare was coming down the -- >> we'll try to continue to protect the american people. when the -- from the consequences of this law. >> mr. speaker, you're tough on outside conservative groups for their criticisms of the budget deal. as you well, just to be candid, they've had a lot of sway in a lot of the decisions that your members have made over the past couple years. is this budget turning point and your members at your behest going to be more focused on compromise than what outside groups are pressuring them to do? >> listen, i take my fair share of criticism from the right and from the left. you know, i came here to fight for a smaller, less costly, more accountable federal government. and this budget agreement takes giant steps in the right direction. it's not everything i wanted,
but when groups come out and criticize an agreement that they've never seen, you begin to wonder just how credible those actions are. and so yesterday when the criticism was coming, frankly i thought was my job and my obligation to stand up for conservatives here in the congress who want more deficit reduction, stand up for the work that chairman ryan did. he did good work on behalf of the american people. it's not everything we wanted, but our job is to find enough common ground to move the ball down the field on behalf of the american people who sent us here to do their work. >> mr. speaker, some tea party groups are calling this a sellout bill that you're compromising too much. is this an example of you finally saying no to the tea party? >> listen, this bill, this budget bill gets us more deficit reduction than what we have under the budget control act. i came here to cut the size of
government. that's exactly what this bill does. and why conservatives wouldn't vote for this or criticize the bill is beyond any recognition that i can come up with. >> if republicans vote for this budget deal, does that ind undermine their ability to vote on a debt ceiling vote next year? >> i don't see the point. >> if they support certain levels for the next two years, -- make up for that amount of spending? >> listen, we're going to deal with these issues one at a time. the goal today is to get this budget agreement passed. we'll deal with the debt ceiling when we get there. >> these groups are using your members, using the american people, what did you mean by that? >> well frankly, i think they're misleading their followers. i think they're pushing our members in places where they don't want to be. and frankly, i just think that they've lost all credibility.
you know, they pushed us into this fight to defund obamacare and to shut down the government. most of you know, my members know that wasn't exactly the strategy i had in mind. but if you'll recall the day before the government reopened, one of the people -- one of these groups stood up and said, well, we never thought it would work. [laughter] are you kidding me? listen, you all know me, all right. i say what i mean. i mean what i say. i'm as conservative as anybody around this place. and all the things that we've done over the three years that i've been speaker have not violated any conservative principle, not once. >> mr. speaker, are you asking these people to stand down? >> i don't care what they do do. [laughter] >> as this year comes to a close, i mean, you had a number
of run-ins with sort of the -- i don't know what you want to call it -- tea party conservative wing of your party. you started the year with the attempt to challenge your speakership. there have been various times where they pushed you into areas where you clearly didn't want to go. do you feel like you're in a better place as this year comes to an end? >> listen, i think there were a lot of lessons learned over the course of this year. a lot of lessons learned over the course of the last three years. and i actually do feel like we are at a better place. you know, i don't usually say it here but i say it when i'm out on the stump, all the lessons i learned growing up the lessons i need to do my job here. i have 11 brothers and sisters and you have to learn to get along as a family, learn to get things done as pa family. i grew up in a bar. my mom did dishes, tended bar. you have to learn to deal with every character that comes in the place, all right.
trust me. i needed all the lessons i learned growing up to do this job. >> are you enjoying this moment being able to speak up and speak your mind in a way that we haven't seen as much? [laughter] >> i don't really think that i've said anything new or anything different than what i felt and what i said in the past. it's just that there just comes to a point when some people step over the line. you know, when you criticize something and you have no idea what you're criticizing, it undermines your credibility. and with that let me say to all of you, have a merry christmas. >> the house is back at noon eastern today. live coverage here on c-span. they'll begin work on the two-year federal budget agreement that was released earlier this week. a short time ago, house minority leader nancy pelosi
spoke in this same room about the budget agreement at her weekly briefing. that was a short time ago. we call it the -- caught the very tail end of that on c-span. now as we wait for the house to come back at noon eastern time, we'll show you her briefing from the top. >> good morning. good morning. . i know you're out there. i see you. today as you know we go to the floor with a budget agreement. chairwoman ator patty murray, our three conferees, congressman chris van hollen, our ranking member on bument, our assistant leader, jim clyburn and the ranking member on appropriations, nita lowey, for bringing this fight to a draw. i think that's really where it came out and it -- hopefully it will go forward today and enable us to clear the table, to set the table for other debates as we go down the line.
whether we're talking about job creation, whether we're talking about raising the minimum wage, whether we're talking about passing an immigration bill. let us get this out of the way. having said that, i just want to say about the republicans, they never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity when it comes to job creation. in this bill, in this budget we could have had, as chris van hollen suggested, investments in short-term and long-term growth. just to close -- to close a loophole, we could have built the infrastructure, built infrastructure in our country, creating jobs immediately. close a loophole, we could have built the human infrastructure by investing in early childhood education. the republicans said no. one of the fastest ways to inject a man into the economy and to create jobs and growth is to have passed the unemployment piece in this legislation. the republicans said no. so in getting rid of
sequestration, which was one of our goals, we did accomplish that one goal and that one point of mr. van hollen's recommendation of the house democratic budget, which those voo us were shared by the senate democratic budget. as i say, we fought it to a draw. let's get through it, let's get it off the table, let's move on to addressing specific issues. there are many that are bipartisan when it comes to the american people. raising the minimum wage, passing an immigration bill, passing a brady background check legislation, passing enda, all of those things have overwhelming support not only in the general public but including strong support among republicans. that's -- i think that's what we have to do. it's interesting to note that they rejected unemployment insurance. this is this is so unconscionable, it's practically immoral for people that play by the rules, lose
their job through no fault of their own are not going to continue to get unemployment insurance check. as i say, not only is it a bad idea from a humanity standpoint, but an economic standpoint. for every dollar that is spent by unemployment insurance it grows the economy by $1.52, a dollar and a half for every dollar you spend you get a dollar and a half to the economy, according to moody's analytics, not me. it will cost us over 200,000 jobs in the next year. it's going to cost jobs. and a recent report that extending u.i. will produce 300,000 jobs. that's the economic policy institute. instead, 1.3 million americans will be cut off from federal unemployment compensation. tens of thousands of veterans will lose their benefits. up to two million children will be impacted because of the families in which they live. and 1.9 million more will lose
their unemployment benefits in the first half of next year. we really have a responsibility. unemployment insurance is insurance. it is part of a safety net, not for these individuals but for our economy. unemployment growth comes up or down and the safety net for that wonderful free market system is that we have a safety net for workers who have to lose their jobs because of the downturn in the economy and through no fault of their own. today, as you saw the figures about the affordable care act, more and more americans are signing up for the quality affordable health insurance and we continue to highlight important protections in the bill. today i want to focus on the issue of pre-existing conditions. this to me is really so transformative in the lives of the american people, and already for over one year. children with pre-existing conditions have not -- have
been protected from being discriminated against by being -- barred from having insurance or other issues that come into it, lifetime caps, annual caps and the rest. imagine a child born with a birth defect or early childhood illness for a lifetime would be -- it would be almost impossible for that child to get that person as he or she grows older to get insurance because they have a pre-existing medical condition. since 2010, insurance companies have been prohibited from denying health insurance to up to 17 million children with conditions like cancer, asthma or diabetes. and starting in january, up to 129 million adults will benefit from this protection as well. this is remarkable. addressing coverage for americans with pre-existing conditions is one of the core
reasons for passing the affordable care act, and by doing so, you bring down cost. i understand that the administration is looking into some steps to ensure that these americans have more time to -- and space to transition. some of them are in high-risk pools. some adults in pre-existing conditions are in high-risk pools. so perhaps allowing more time for them to move from the high-risk pool to comprehensive insurance plans. i'd encourage them to do that. there's good deal of support among my colleagues for that to happen. the affordable care act is for health, liberty, pursuit of happiness, not tied to a plan and job but free to pursue your happiness if you want to start a business, if you want to be self-employed, if you want to change jobs, think of what that means to an individual. think what it means to a society. think of what it means to an economy. with that i'd be pleased to have any questions you may
have. yes, ma'am. >> speaker boehner had some choice words for conservative groups who are once again calling on conservatives to vote against this deal and that's something he's been reluctant to do in the past. what do you think it means for the possibility of more barringins like this one next year? >> well, i hope the barringins that we have are better than this one. this is flaw to a draw but not a draw with a high split, a draw as small as it could possibly be. but i was encouraged by what he had to say, and we'll see what happens today. yes, ma'am. >> do you think that the bipartisanship expressed in this deal is a one-off event or do you see this as a real turning point in the way the house works? >> i think it's neither. i don't think it's a one-off, and i don't think it's a great turning point, but i think that we have many more areas that we can work together in a bipartisan way. we know if the speaker would bring the immigration bill to
the floor it would have bipartisan support to go forward. we know if the speaker would be of nda, nondiscrimination people in the workplace from we know it unity, would be bipartisan. there are many areas that we know that infrastructure has never been a partisan issue. that has always been he have -- very bipartisan. so there are many, many areas where we can work together. you know, i'd hope that we judge each piece of legislation on its merits and go forward from there. certainly not achieving this would not have been a good signal, but i don't under or overestimate the power of this one event today. yes, sir. >> you mentioned unemployment insurance and so many democrats have. >> yeah. >> i wonder what's different
this time around with expiring benefits than times in the past. since the end of the bush administration, in fact, president obama and congressional democrats have really gone to the mat on several occasions to insist on u.i. this time the white house has mentioned it but they really haven't pushed it. you said at the podium last week and said we want u.i. definitely. doesn't have to be part of the murray-ryan deal. kind of diffused that. why is it different with expiring benefits? >> we aren't giving up on it. i said it was an immorality that it wasn't in the legislation. the president is making overtures to congress to do this. we had a steering policy hearing last week that was really i was so happy it was shown on tv three times with people telling their stories about what this meant to them and their families, their homes, the places that they lived to be able to be intact. so this is a big fight for us. i told my members, we have to
go forward with what is before us right now, but that doesn't mean that diminishes the importance of this. in fact, it gives us a bigger spotlight to put on it. look, they would do this. it wouldn't close one corporate loophole. even just to extend it for three months so we could continue the debate. no, these are fighting words for us because this is about who we are as a nation. it's about our economy and how it thrives as a market economy, a capitalist system, but you have to have a safety net so that the cycles can take place. and when people lose their jobs through no fault of their own because of the cycles that they -- that they have a safety net. and by the way, many requirements that go with it, that people have to be looking for jobs at the same time, so we'll find out if this is the price or if it's the money. is it the price, do they think the price is too high to pay? well, it isn't because it
brings 1.5 -- $1.50 or more to the economy for every dollar spent. is it the money? would they rather give tax breaks to special interests rather than reinforce the community that we have to grow our economy with workers sometimes working, sometimes not? this is a big philosophical fight for us. what we want to know from them -- do you ever intend to support unemployment insurance? >> senator reid came to the floor yesterday and said we'll deal with this in january. why would democrats say, s.g.r. doesn't get out of here with u.i.? >> but have you heard -- they would have to have 60 votes in the senate to do this. they still need that for this kind of vote. and we still need the speaker to agree to put it there. you should ask these questions of the speaker. but these -- this is an intolerable situation to us, but we also want to end
sequestration. you have two noes. two noes don't make a yes, so we'll get one yes and fight to get the second yes. > madam leader, how big of a bill is this for people to swallow? >> not having u.i. or the whole bill? >> the bill. >> what i also said if it's a stinkin' lousy budget even with u.i. in it we may not vote for it. so there was much improvement that had to take place in that bill for us to vote for it and that improvement did take place and members will vote for it. the most unease we have, of course, is that unemployment insurance isn't in it. so i said to them, just weigh the merits of what this bill is as a budget bill and we have no problem with s.g.r. going forward. that helps our seniors. it's about the doctors but it's about the doctors and their relationships to seniors. so it isn't about this or that. it's about the fact that, yeah,
we're unhappy. we're very unhappy about it but not enough to say they're for we're going to make matters worse by not having agreement. we're just going to point out, differentiate to the american people because the american people understand how necessary this is. yes, sir. >> is there ever a point when the economy is in beater place or good enough place where you don't need -- is in a better place or good enough where you don't need to extend unemployment insurance? >> i think he was voting for it when the economy was at five point something percent. it is a question of what sectors of the economy, how much of it is long term. it isn't a simple thing. we're all on, we're all off. it's a percentage in certain states and all that. but we all have to -- the answer to almost every question is a job. it's growth in our economy,
investments in infrastructure. nothing brings more money to the treasury of the united states than investing in education and all that brings to our competitiveness as well as helping people reach their aspirations. so we have a values debate on this subject, but you can't say certain percentage, yes, certain percentage, no. it depends on what certain sectors of the economy geographically are affected by it. >> so you have said the last couple days, it's going to be up to your members to vote how they want. > that's how they always do. it's our consensus -- >> you guys have pushed in and depending on pieces of legislation, i guess my question is in the past three years, we have had several dozen major pieces of legislation that passed with more democrats than republicans. is this able to -- you say this
is a draw. this isn't what you guys want. are you basically saying to republicans, you guys are in the majority, you lead, you pass this budget? >> no, no. as i said, it all depends on what the bill is that people are going to vote for. it all comes down to what is this. a matter of days ago i would have said there weren't many votes on our side for this bill. now there are. we'll see how many votes republicans brings. but it's always interesting to me when people say, oh, good news. we're going to have a majority -- look, if i ever came to you say and say i have 120 votes for something they will asay you're 100 votes short. so we really thought it would have been -- it's the right thing to do to do unemployment insurance and especially when you need our votes. will you tell me just say this about that subject because i'm reading these things about how heavy-handed i was when i was speaker. i -- we built consensus. we have a very final woven fabric that's called the house
democratic caucus. every threat in it is its own individual person. whether it's philosophical, geographic, generational, ethnic, whatever the differences are, everybody is that unique piece. and we built consensus in our caucus, and when we reach consensus is when we have a position that we're asking other people to vote for. and so when they say, oh, she was heavy-handed, i say, your guy was called the hammer. we built consensus. we're -- we have a loom. you have a hammer. so this whole thing is very interesting, but the fact is is -- i don't think our members will let this bill go down. if it's a close call for some, as they weigh different things, their unease about unemployment insurance, that's really one issue because i think that -- while i don't like this, as i said, much more could have been done to invest in jobs and
create, it's an ok thing to vote for. we'll see what the republicans produce and the rest. but i hope we can show a good strong bipartisan vote -- >> you can watch this briefing in its entirely at c-span.org. we go live now to the house. house members returning to begin work on the two-year federal budget agreement released earlier this week. it reduces the sequester budget cuts and as a result increases in overall spending but it still cuts the number of programs and increases some fees. the house will also begin work on a short-term farm bill extension today. live house coverage here on c-span. he house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our guest chaplain, reverend john lou don, first presbyterian church, lakeland, florida. the chaplain: let us pray. lord we acknowledge our need for divine guidance and confess we are imperfect people in need of forgiveness. we give thanks that you are not only a god of righteousness but
also a god of compassion and offer us mercy. empower us to live in such a way that we strive for balance in our lives and seek to exhibit conviction as well as grace. may we make our own an old prayer offered daily by harry truman -- everlasting god, help me to be, to think, and to act what to right -- what is right, because it is right. make me truthful, honest, and honorable in all things. make me intellectually honest for the sake of honor and without thought of reward for me. give me the ability to be charitable, forgiving around patient with others and help me understand their motives and shortcomings even as you understand mine. amen and amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approvele. for what purpose duds the gentleman from south carolina
rise? >> pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, i demand a vote on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. the speaker: the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the journal stands approve. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. wilson: i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present. the speaker: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceed thongs question are postpone. the pledge of allegiance today will be led by the gentleman from north carolina, mr. price. mr. price: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: without objection, the gentleman from florida, mr. ross is recognized for one minute. mr. ross: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in gratitude that
my good friend, pastor mike lou don, from my home church in lake -- mike loudoun, in fri home my home churchom in lakeland, florida, was here. truly she a great man with a legacy of what counts in life and the life hereafter. he's a pillar in the lakeland and polk county communities, he's active in rotary club, a man of god and has a fantastic sense of humor. he's served churches across the country prior to coming to first presbyterian church in lakeland in 1999. his messages are encouraging and always resonate with me. i'm honored to have him as my pastor and my friend. i join countless others for the privilege to serve and to have him give the opening prayer here today. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> i ask unanimous consent --
the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain up to 15 further requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> we all know that this administration is desperate to enroll young, healthy americans in the exchange plans. a recent add campaign from progress now colorado shows just how low some groups are willing to go to catch young people's attention. the adds depict young men drinking -- as depict young men drinking out of degrees of beer, they make light of unhelly behaviors. i recreptly received a letter from dr. julie welsh, an emergency room physician in indianapolis, specifically concerned about how the ads promoted risky sexual behavior. the let's get physical ad
depicts a young woman thanking , oh my e with the words god he's hot let's hope he's as asy to get as this birth control pill. i have insurance and you can too. dr. welsh a writes i'm puzzled risky condone behaviors. this is not a step toward healthy america but a -- another way obamacare doesn't work. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> to address he thousands for one minnesota. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is rebling niced for e minute. mr. welch: for that reason i, along with virtually all of my colleagues, voted for tough, enforceable sanctions.
there's a question now in this house about whether congress should present yet another resolution on iran. there's two questions that raises. number one, do we send a message to the world that congress is not on the same page as our president and secretary of state in their absolute determination to rid iran of a nuclear capability? number two, do we send a ssage to our allies in the p-5-plus-1 that include china and russia? not our trusted friends but reluctant allies, who guarantee that the tough sanctions that we impose are enforceable? if we pass sanctions that don't have the cooperation of our allies, they're meaningless. so the question that we have is any action that we take, will it increase or diminish our strength in guaranteeing no nuclear weapons in iran? i yield back.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. johnson: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. johnson: thank you. mr. speaker, for the last 30 years social security has been required to make deceased americans' social security numbers and other personal information public through the so-called death master file. unfortunately, identity thieves have been using this file to obtain fraudulent tax refunds based on the identity of deceased americans, particularly children. like 4-year-old alexis agin here. no grieving family should have to go through this. to put a stop to this heinous crime, earlier this year i introduced the alexis agin identity theft protection act with my democrat colleague, javier becerra, and thanks to the budget deal, which includes
a provision to restrict access to the death master file, american families will be better protected from tax fraud. i salute the agins for their tireless advocacy. god bless america. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the entleman from new jersey rise? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. payne: mr. speaker, i rise today on behalf of over 90,000 unemployed new jerseyans at the risk of losing their unemployment benefits on december 28 if congress fails to act before the end of the year. despite what my colleagues on the other side think, unemployment insurance helps during hard times and people forget that we are still recovering from the worst recession since the great depression. patrick, a carpenter from raleigh, new jersey, struggles to find employment through no
fault of his own. his family will not be able to afford their mortgage if this critical lifeline is cut. maylene from maplewood, new jersey, is an educated professional but has been unable to find work since february. in her letter she wrote, when do my elected officials start caring for me and the millions of other people struggling to survive, not living, but scraping by? vote to extend unemployment benefits will equate to hope for many families in the new year. i urge the house leadership to address this looming expiration of the unemployment benefits for millions of americans before leaving this year. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? mr. wilson: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, during
last night's town hall by telephone with constituents, i conducted a poll and asked what should be done first to tackle our national debt. 51% of participants want congress to repeal obamacare. obamacare will add to our national debt as higher premiums and taxes are placing burdens on families and destroying jobs. rachel from west columbia said, quote, obamacare is still very costly for me and my family. at times we have difficulty purchasing food for my family because of health insurance costs. robert from macon spent time on the website and found, quote, he would be paying about 2/3 more for much worse insurance plan. 2013 should be remembered as the year further revealing the failure and threat of big government with the obamacare train wreck, continuing of the benghazi cover-up, the i.r.s. targeting, n.s.a. spying and d.o.j.-f.b.i. eavesdropping on media. congress should act passing reforms that encourage job
creation and expand freedom. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. barrow: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. barrow: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, this time of year as we gather with family and friends, it's important for us to remember the men and women in the military who sacrifice so much for our country. those who've been injured in battle oftentimes find themselves a long way from home during the holidays. this year, like every year, i'm donating the over $68,000 frequent flier miles that i receive from congressional travel to the fisher house hero miles program which provides free airline tickets so american soldiers and their families can be together. the fisher house provided more than 40,000 flights worth some $63 million to wounded troops and their families. we got no business keeping these frequent flyer miles and i don't know who can make better use of them.
i ask my colleagues give their frequent flyer miles to places like the fisher charity house. it's the right thing to do. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. r. desjarlais: i commend the people in the fourth district of tennessee. magnus library began as a service project to the women's civic league with w.h. magnus to provide a rest stop for families coming into town to sell and trade. in 1917, the library moved to the current location on the corner of chancery and main street and they joined the tennessee state library and archives. thanks to generous donations
from thousands of patrons, the magnus library flourished into one of the longest running libraries in our state over the years. the library provides invaluable services including a strong summer reading program for children and genealogy research for adults. congratulations to the magnus library on their centennial and i look forward to seeing their successful future endeavors. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, if the interim nuclear deal negotiated last month leads to a final agreement, iran can be prevented from developing a nuclear weapon. mr. price: this would neutralize one of the greatest threats facing the united states, israel and the international community and could set the stage for a new era of relations between iran and the west. the unprecedented sanctions already in place have brought the iranian economy to its knees and the government to the negotiating table.
we're entering these talks from a position of strength, a strong hand to play, but if congress rushes through another round of sanctions or takes other action perceived as undermining the negotiations, we'll be giving up our hand before we even have a chance to play it. iran would have a chance to walk away from the table, and the international coalition that's been so critical to the current sanctions regime could fracture, thus weakening the leverage we already have. there's no guarantee that a final deal is possible, but given the stakes involved, we simply must try for the alternatives are far worse. iran would then be left to develop its nuclear program without supervision. the united states could be drawn into a war in the middle east. oppose any attempt to undermine our country's diplomacy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. thompson: mr. speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the
gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, each year congress deliberately acts to craft, pass and sign into law the national defense authorization act, the annual policy bill for the u.s. department of defense. for the first time in 52 years, this may no longer be the case. this year the house passed its version in june while the senate begin dragged its feet. congressional leaders reached a compromise that will allow both chambers to move forward. it includes an important amendment i offered dealing with the transitional assistance management program, or tamp, which offers health care coverage for service members transitioning into civilian. symptoms related to posttraumatic stress don't appear until eight to 10 months after deployment. the amendment will extend coverage under tamp by 180 days for all services rendered through telemedicine which is critical, especially with those coping with mental injuries. as a father of an active duty soldier, i'm hopeful we can
bring this bill to the finish line and make commitment to our troops in continuing to meet obligations around the world. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island rise? mr. cicilline: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. cicilline: mr. speaker, i rise today to commemorate human rights day, an occasion to recognize the struggles of individuals all around the world who fight for their basic right of life, liberty and security of person. n march 2, 2011, jean clawed roger of cameroon was arrested for, and i quote, home sexuality and attempted homosexuality. jean claude is one of the individual cases of the tom lantos human rights commission which seeks members of congress work for their rights and freedom. sadly, cases such as these are far too common in areas of the world where people can be imprisoned for simply exercising their basic human
rights. i call upon the cameroonian authority to live up to their obligation, to respect and protect the rights of jean claude and all cameroonians. i pledge to follow his story and do what i can to secure his safety. i hope my colleagues will take up cases from the defending freedoms project and ensure justice for wrongly imprisoned individuals all across the world. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the entleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas rise? >> i ask unanimous cop sent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> the number of americans who support updating our electronic communication privacy laws is growing. just today "the washington post" reported that 100,000 americans have signed a petition asking president obama to spoth changes in a 27-year-old privacy law called the electronic prifecy t that allows the government
to search american's emails without a warrant. mr. yoder: it prohibits searching postal mail without a warrant. this defies logic. think how far we've come in regards to internet technology. americans are shocked when they learn their emails don't have the same privacy as mail and other documents in their home. that's why i sprotused the email privacy act a bipartisan bill to affirm that americans have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their emails. mr. speaker, it's time congress and the president worked together to update our email privacy laws. i urge the house to pass this needed legislation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. eshoo: over the next few weeks americans will be
celebrating the holidays with friends and family alike but for 1 ppt 3 million people the situation will be desperate. the pains of long-term unemployment will be compounded as their benefits run out on december 28. ms. chu: these people have strug told find work after losing a job. they include thousands of veterans who recently completed their military service and include families who need unemployment benefits to clothe their children and put food on the table. it's unconscionable that this budget deal does not protect these vulnerable families who had no part in causing the recession that put them in such dire circumstances. as we go into this holiday season, let us help those in greatest need extend unemployment benefits. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without
objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. yarmuth: last weekend in louisville, the spires glowed orange in support of something the hallowed track knows well a champion. entered es high school the championship on a streak of shutouts whefpble they luned up against new port central catholic to play for the title on saturday, the desales defense hadn't aloud a point in two weeks. fueled by three touchdowns from all-time leading rusher dylan byrd, and a defense ape cored by middle linebacker matt bouchar dferingsthashe overcame a tough opponent, 38-26, taking state for the first time in school history. the title caps a remarkable 14-1 season for the colts who became only the second south end team to win state. for head coach davis it offered a nice symmetry. he was a senior safety on the 81 team, one of only two
others to play in the times. there's no question this year's team now stand at the top. they might have been outsized through the the playoff bus they were never outmatched orout played. i'm proud to join all of louisville in honoring desales lts, kentucky's 20132a champions. go colts! the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon rise? without objection, the gentleman s recognized for one minute. mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. speaker. it appears the rumored sanctions legislation dealing with iran may not reach the floor this week. that would be good news. it is imperative that we take this optimistic development that gives us a chance for a diplomatic resolution of the differences with iran and prevent them from developing nuclear weapons to come to
fruition. we must not give excuses to iranian hardliners who hate america, a reason to walk away. we don't want to confuse our allies who we rely upon to make sanctions work be confused about our intentions. it is imperative that we move forward aggressively, thoughtfully, to make the most out of this six months, using diplomacy to make sure that there is -- that the majority of iranians who recently voted for a change in direction and a relative moderate as president a re-- are reinforced. this is a unique moment in history. i'm pleased that it looks like the house might not screw it up. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman veckmied -- recognized for one
minnesotaism >> i rise to highlight a recent discovery by researchers at university of california at davis. earlier this month, professor eter armstrong published a new role for blood clots, absorbing bodily toxins. they're known for being critical in stopping blood flow and preventing contaminants entering the body. mr. mcnerney: mr. armstrong and his colleagues demonstrated that a toxin is absoshed by blood clots inhibiting it from circulating within the body. this study funded by the national science foundation brings us one step closer to understanding the human body and improving medical care. we must continue funding science and health research projects as the next great discovery just may save your life. i yield back.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> as a member who has consistently voted -- mr. doggett: as a member who has consistently voted to impose nctions on iran, i commend secretaries kerry and others for their work. iranian hardliners may ultimately obstruct a meaningful permanent agreement but we should not give them a pretext for doing. so those here who would interfere or limit these negotiations are really offering the american people only one alternative. it is called war. we have been there and done that before. military nax iraq cost us very dearly, it did not make us
safer. let's not repeat this deadly mistake. ile difficult and uncertain, diplomacy is already eliminating chemical weapons from sir yasm it represents our best hope to prevent nuclear weapons in iran and assure the safety of our famcies -- families and others around the world. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> it is with great sadness i observe the passing of justice john gabbert who died monday at the age of 104. a longtime riverside resident, he was a dedicated public servant a key founder of u.c. riverside and a prominent lead for the riverside's expansion from a citrus growing town into an urban center. mr. takano: he was 3 years old
when his family moved to riverside. after graduating from poly high school he stayed in the community to attend riverside city college where his interest in the law was park sparked by the feign mouse chicken coop murders. he received his law degree from urment c. berke leer and returned to riverside to serb as a county district attorney. he worked in a private practice. he served as as a member of the local school board. but he's mostly known as a fine jurist. he was appointed to be a superior court judge, and then in 1970 appointed to be an associate justice of the fourth district court of appeals. throughout his life, john gabbert touched the lives of so many people he will be greatly missed. i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without
objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker, many of us are congratulating each other over this bipartisan budget agreement. tu but there is still unfinished business we need to take care of. unemployment is a real issue for our nation and our communs and in my district, unemployment is as high as 16.9%. ms. hahn: twice the national average. if we fail to take immediate action and we allow these emergency unemployment insurance california, t in 214,00 people alone will lose their benefits by december 28 and an additional 325,800 unemployed california workers will lose their benefits in the first six months of the year. this is really unacceptable. a failure to extend this critical lifeline to those in need would not only be a
devastating blow for millions of american families already struggling but it would hurt our own recovery of our economy. now to not the time to bull the rug out from under millions of americans who lost their jobs through no fault of their own. speaker boehner i urge you to do the right thick and not adjourn this house without extending federal unemployment insurance for millions of americans. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today in honor of ronald k. moore of aurora, colorado, who pass aid way from a stroke on november 12 at the age of 71. mr. moore was born on march 25, 1942, in fort smith, arkansas, dellmer and arence
golda moore. he graduated from wheeler county high school in fossil, oregon. he went on to serve in the united states navy in the vietnam war on board the aircraft carrier u.s.s. coral seas as well as duty in rhode island at the naval war college. in the spring of 1963, he married nancy healy and on march 29 of this year they celebrated their 50th anniversary. mr. vargas: mr. moore began working for united airlines in 1966 and spent decades in the field of de-icing until retiring in 2003 after 37 years. he held multiple patents for inventions in both information and system operation as well as software products used in the process of de-icing. his inventions and patents are still in use today in order to help determine time for de-icing fluids which aflours safe timing in inclement weather.
my thoughts go out to his family including his wife, his son of chula vista, his daughter sond rah of aurora, colorado and his sister, carol of wimple. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new hampshire rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection ethe -- the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker, as we approach the end of the calendar year i'm proud that both chambers have finally come together to pass the 2014 national defense authorization act. ms. kuster: this important bill will help ensure that men and women of our armed services have the resources they need to do their job and keep our country safe. i'm especially pleased that this bill includes important reforms to help prevent
military sexual assault by better protecting whistleblowers and holding perpetrators accountable for their actions. this critical reform is an amendment from legislation introduced by my republican colleague, representative jackie with a lors key, and my democratic -- walorski, and my tratt eg colleague, loretta -- democratic colleague, loretta sanchez. because of our joint efforts working across the aisle, this is a great first step in furthering protecting heroes in uniform who take the extra heroic step of coming forward to blow the whistle on military sexual crimes. it's been an honor to help build support for this legislation, and i urge my colleagues to continue to work to end sexual violence in our military. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute.
mr. deutch: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the list of issues that the 113th congress has failed to address is long. immigration reform, gun violence, long-term joblessness. opportunities squandered by republican obstructionism and indifference is also the threat of global climate change. as a member of the safe climate caucus, i want to emphasize that this threat is real and it needs real solutions. in south florida, we know that unchecked carbon pollution places a threat to our communities. rising sea levels endanger the safety of our residents and the viability of our economy. that's why palm beach, monroe, miami dade and broward counties have formed a climate compact dedicated to mitigating climate change. yet, local task forces cannot replace national leadership. we need a nationwide effort to speed the adoption of clean energy and protect our people from unprecedented natural disasters. every member of this house belongs on the safe climate
caucus. don't we all agree that as americans it's our responsibility to pass on a healthier and safer environment to the next generation? mr. speaker, addressing global climate change will take courage. anything less, i'm afraid, is cowardess. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the entleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. woodall: mr. speaker, by the direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 438 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 78, house resolution 438, resolved, that upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to take from the speaker's table 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 to consider in the house, without intervention of any point of order, a motion offered by the
chair of the committee on the budget or his designee that the house recede from its amendment and concur in the senate amendment with the amendment printed in part a of the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution modified by the amendment printed in part b of that report. the senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. the motion shall be debatable for 70 minutes, with 60 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the budget and 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on energy and commerce. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question. section 2. the chair of the committee on the budget may insert in the congressional record at any time during the remainder of the first session of the 113th congress such material as he may deem explanatory of the motion specified in the first section of this resolution. section 3.
in the engrossment of the house amendment to the senate amendment to house joint resolution 59, the clerk may conform division, title, and section numbers and conform cross-references and provisions for short titles. section 4. the chair of the committee on armed services may insert in the congressional record at any time during the remainder of the first session of the 113th congress such material as he may deem explanatory of defense authorization measures for the fiscal year 2014. section 5. it shall be in order at any time on the legislative day of december 12, 2013, or december 13, 2013, for the speaker to entertain motions that the house suspend the rules as though under clause 1 of rule 15. the speaker or his designee shall consult with the minority leader or her designee on the designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this section. section 6. on any legislative day of the first session of the one
-- 113th congress after december 13, 2013, a, the journal of the proceedings of the previous day shall be considered as approved, and b, the chair may at any time declare the house adjourned to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4, section 5, article 1 of the constitution, to be announced by the chair in declaring the adjournment. section 7. on any legislative day of the second session of the 113th congress before january 7, 2014, a, the speaker may dispense with organizational and legislative business. b, the journal of the proceedings of the previous day shall be considered as approved if applicable, and c, the chair at any time may declare the house adjourned to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4, section 5, article 1 of the constitution, to be announced by the chair in declaring the adjournment. section 8. the speaker may appoint members to perform the duties of the
chair for the duration of the period addressed by sections 6 and 7 as though under clause 8-a of rule 1. section 9. each day during the period addressed by sections 6 and 7 of this resolution shall not constitute a calendar day for purposes of section 7 of the war powers resolution, 50 u.s.c. 1546. section 10. upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the house the bill h.r. 3695, to provide a temporary extension of the food, conservation, and energy act of 2008 and amendments made by that act, as previously extended and amended and with certain additional modifications and exceptions, to suspend permanent price support authorities, and for other purposes. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. the amendment printed in part c of the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted. the bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. all points of order against
provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except, one, 40 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on agriculture, and two, one motion to recommit with or without instructions. section 11. the requirement of clause 6-a of rule 13 for a 2/3 vote to consider a report from the committee on rules on the same day it is presented to the house is waived with respect to any resolution reported through the legislative day of december 13, 2013. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one hour. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. and for the purpose of debate only, i'd like to yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend from new york, ms. slaughter, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized.
mr. woodall: mr. speaker, for purposes -- during consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for debate purpose only. and i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. woodall: as we're doing housekeeping here at the beginning, mr. speaker, i'd also like to ask unanimous consent that a section by section analysis of provisions within the jurisdiction of the committee on rules be made apart of the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. woodall: thank you, 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're involved in something special on a day like today. if it was an ordinary rule we would be done with that reading in 15 or 20 second and we'd 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 s.g.r.
fix, what they call a sustainable growth rate, mr. speaker. that's that provision that threatens to cut double digits from the reimbursement rates of physicians, hindering the access of seniors to their medicare benefits. we're trying to solve that here today, again, bringing forward a bipartisan, bicameral solution to that. and finally, we're making available an opportunity to extend the farm bill language. we've gotten so close again, mr. speaker, to a bicameral, bipartisan solution to the farm bill. those folks who are deeply involved in those negotiations tell us if they can get 30 more days they'll be able to get that done for the first time in far, far too long. this bill makes that debate available here on the floor of the house. and 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 to the president
of the united states to be signed into law on concerns. this rule makes those provisions, any provision that the house deem necessary available to be considered in the same day. i just want to be clear, as my colleague from new york knows, that's 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 be a opportunity to review legislation before it comes to the floor. we have made a strong commitment throughout this congress to provide a three-deleover for folks to review legislation -- three-day layover for folks to review legislation. with issues so close to fruition, 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 of 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'm only on the budget committee as the rules committee designee, and the proudest votes that i've been able to take in this house in my three years with the voting card of the seventh district of georgia have been on those bills we have crafted together in the budget committee that we have brought to the floor and passed. as you know, mr. speaker, for far too long the house has been the only place to pass the budget. the senate joined those ranks for the first time in a long time. we have been getting that business done. what we haven't been able to do is 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, i have to say, mr. speaker, by one of my colleagues from georgia, dr. tom price, also one of our best and brightest. put that georgia stamp of approval of where we were headed with our budget bill and senator patty murray led the senate side, led the senate side and they worked not for a day, not for a week, they worked tirelessly around the clock to try to find an agreement that we could have together. now i'm 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, the things that make a difference for america. we don't have that big budget deal on the floor.
this rule doesn't make available for debate on a big budget deal. we couldn't find the big budget deal. 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. i've grown fond in recent weeks, mr. speaker, as we've been rolling through this of a, quote first shared with me of our deputy whip, peter roskam. it was in a thomas jefferson letter to charles clay in 1790. he said this, mr. speaker. 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 to be pressed forward for what is yet to get. it takes time to persuade men to do even that which is for their own good. we're in the game of inches here today, mr. speaker. i expect you'll 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 which is yet to get. my sense is my friend from new york will eternally pressing in this direction and i will be pressing 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 three 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'm grateful to the folks of ways and means committee and the senate finance committee who've come together, again, to find that bicameral, bipartisan s.g.r. 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 this 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 f my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my friend for yielding me the customary 30 minutes and yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is remember niced. ms. slaughter -- ms. slaughter: i'm pleased that the legislation before us today gives thinks chance to mitigate the worst effects of sequestration, but it is not enough. our nation can and should dare to once again dream big. we're a nation that built one of the largest interstate highway systems in the world that is presently crumbling.
watched the internet -- launched the internet, pioneered the creation of fwmplet p.s., created the largest middle class on earth, through a fair and balanced tax code that asks everyone, incruding the wealthiest among us and the biggest corporations, to pay their fair share. and we're home to public institutions like the national institutes of health which has helped to find cure ffers 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 and 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 take responsible fiscal choices that are a reflection of our values. that means restoring smart and targeted funding to the programs and agencies that drive our
country forward. asking the most fortunate among us to pay their fair share, not more than that 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 1,300,000 americans scheduled to lose them within a matter of weeks, three days after christmas, actually. in the united states of america, we believe in providing a hand up, not a kick while your down. and unemployment insurance is that hand up. studies have shown that unemployment insurance allows job seekers to purchase necessities such as groceries and gas without accruing further debt. in so doing it helps increase the economic activity while easing the financial burden of unemployment.
ericans need us to make it easier, not harder for them to find a new job. that's why democrat colleagues, representative levin, representative van hollen, veptive barbara lee, introduced a rule in the rules committee to extend unemployment insurance for an additional three months. just three months. this bill was paid for, i want to make that perfectly clear, would not have cost an extra dime. inexcuseably, the majority rejected my colleagues' amendment despite inserting language to fix medicare payments to doctors over the coming year, which is certainly important. fixing medicare payments to doctors is a worthy and important goal but it is certainly troubling and should be to all of thause 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 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's hurt our economy and our country and there is an urgent need to avert the next round of budget cuts scheduled to take effect and i am grateful for that. in a study conducted earlier this year by the association of american universities, 81% of the respondents declared that
sequestration cuts had immediate and detrimental effects on research activities. 70% of respondents cited delays in research projects and 58% respondents stated that in sequestration that lead to reductions in staff, students through attrition and layoffs and a recent study showed that sequestration and other budget cuts have resulted in a national institutes of health budget far too low to support our biomedical research community. anything to that point, mr. speaker, let me say that during the government shutdown, which cost the economy $24 billion and was useless, that the five noble laureates employed by the united states of america, only one was declared essential. four noble laureates were said to be not een-- four know belle laureates were said to be -- four no belle laureates were
said -- nobel laureates were to be nonessential. our public health knowledge is stunted for years to come. as a microbiologists i can tell you you cannot simply turn research off and on like a faucet but that's exactly what we do when we arbitraryly slash the budget with no regard of consequences of our cuts. and that's why today's legislation is an important step forward in 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 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. so 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 and we will give you an an opportunity to do that at the thoached rule. in so doing, we can ep sure brighter, more prosperous future for every american this holiday season. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the rule and reserve the wlns of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. woodall: i thank the gentlelady from new york. i appreciate her mentioning those things that we are, working on together. we had an opportunity in the rules committee last night to add to these bills that we're 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 dicare, to add to that, an
unemployment extension the rules committee are seeing for the first time. i don't know what the committees of jurisdiction were doing. i was one of the no votes last night, that was not the appropriate place to do this. but i'm so pleased that this rule contains the same-day authority that i mentioned earlier. if think colleagues, who i know have deeply heart felt 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, but if we pass this rule today we'll have the opportunity to bring such a package up. i hope we can find that agreement but at the moment, i hope we can pass this rule so is if such an agreement found we'll have the authority on the floor of the house to bring that agreement immediately
to the floor for consideration. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter spm i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts a member of the committee on rules, mr. mcgovern. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i thank the ranking member for yielding me the time. let me first of all begin by congratulating congressman ryan and congressman van hollen and senator murray ray for coming together and trying to work out a bipartisan budget deal. it is far from what i would deem as perfect but it begins to chip away at this awful sequestration that my republican friends seem so enamored with. but i want to come here on the floor to echo what the ranking member said, in terms of expressing outrage over the fact that my republican friends want to leave town without addressing the issue of extending unemployment compensation for 1.3 million americans. they're going to leave town tomorrow and on december 28, after they've opened up all their presents and wished
everybody a merry christmas and had a wonderful dinner, on december 28, 1.3 million of our fellow citizens will be cut off totally from their unemployment compensation. now i want to put this in perspective. on november 1, the american recovery act funds ran out in terms of supporting the snap program, which means that everybody on snap, everybody, has received a cut. so the average family of three, mr. speaker, received a $30 reduction in their snap benefits. that's their food benefit. that's about 16 meals. may not seem like a big deal to some on the other side of the aisle but for millions of families in this country who are struggling to put food on the table, it is a big deal. on to have o-- on top of that, they're going to say to these 1.3 million people and their families, you know, we don't care. we don't care. we're leaving town. since when did my republican friends have to wait for a
bicamera -- bicameral, bipartisan deal on anything to bring this to the floor? they brought a repeal of the affordable health care to the floor about four dozen times. since when do they wait to get a back room deal with the senate before we're allowed to vote on something on the house floor? that's an excuse. it's a poor excuse. we ought to be doing the people's business and that means not turning our backs on millions of americans who are struggling during this difficult economy. we ought not to be making excuses. we ought to do something. this is an opportunity to do it. defeat the previous question and we could have a vote on extending unemployment compensation for the 1.3 million people and it's paid for. if you don't want to do it, vote no. but for those of us in this chamber who believe we have a moral obligation to those people, we want that vote. and let us vote for the extension and then send it over to the senate. let's take some leadership on this issue. let's not turn ourbacks on the most vulnerable in this country
and it become unfashionable in this congress to worry about the poomple it's become unfashionable to stand up for these programs just to help people get by. this is the holiday season. have a heart. have a heart. we ought to do something here. we ought to help these people. not just skip town. so there's no excuses. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote no on the previous question. let us vote on extending unemployment compensation and let us do the right thing. let's not make excuses. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. mcgovern: i'm glad our -- mr. woodall: i'm glad our bipartisan, bicameral spirit lasted for the first five minutes of the debate. 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 by
beginning the presentation say, we could do this except for those heartless republicans, it's easy to see why disagreement prevails and agreement is hard to find. i would say to my friend that i appreciate his recognition of the tireless effort we 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's 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 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's what he wants. i think he cares deeply about channels folks have in this country and cares deeply about softing those problems. i will say to you, mr. speaker, as i said to all my colleagues, we can do these things together. this is not a case of first impression. the gentleman knows that. we've come together and -- in part to extend unemployment benefits and just to be clear
because we spend a lot of time in this chamber, mr. speaker, creating fear out there and i of the most ne shimful things we are part of, creating fear for families that needn't have that fear but for families that are concerned, we're talking about the emergency extended benefits, those base exunemployment benefits that your state has guaranteed to you, nothing is happening to those. nothing is happening to those. folks need to know that. those weeks of unemployment that the federal government has always provided, nothing is happening to those. folks need to know that. what we're talking about is those emergency benefits. what we have done is come together not once, twice, not three times, four times, but more to do this together and we can do this together. i promise you, mr. speaker, we are only going to do it working together if the answer is someone's got the heart -- mr. mcgovern: will the gentleman
yield? mr. woodall: i would be happy to yield. mr. mcgovern: my question to the gentleman, on december 28, 1 -- one million people will lose their benefit. they are also having their snap benefit cut. what do these people do on december 28? mr. woodall: reclaiming my time. i would say to my friend who has incredible expertise on this issue instead of being on this floor impugning our committee's process or impugning my heart, the gentleman could be hard at work creating a bipartisan and bicameral solution. because the gentleman knows, mr. speaker, the gentleman knows that anything short of a bipartisan, bicameral solution is showboating for those folks who are hurting, not doing a dag gum thing to help them. we don't need showboating. e 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 one year, not in two years, not in three
years, but more. it's important, mr. speaker, because we come together on a pathway to a farm bill not in one year, not in two years, not in three years, but in more. and we have come together on a process to solve an s.g.r. that has plagued us not for one year, not for two years, not for three years, but for more. for acrimony, ay mr. speaker. there's not a person in this chamber who is getting everything they want to. i promise you i'm not. i promise you my constituents are not. this is a day for doing what can be done if what we are doing today makes a difference. what we are doing today makes a difference. i ask my colleagues to look at not just what we are doing today, but how it is we came together to do it. because of that, that is the framework, mr. speaker, we'll accomplish the rest of these goals i know colleagues on both sides of the aisle share. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from new york.
ms. slaughter: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from michigan, 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 1.3 -- 1.3 allow million americans to keep their unemployment benefits for three paids, which is absolutely for and does not add a nickel to the deficit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. levin: i'm glad we are talking about unemployment insurance. we are not showboating. we want to vote. and you misunderstand if i might say so the issue. f we don't act on december 28,
will lose people every cent of unemployment insurance. these are people who have exhausted their state benefits. they have exhausted them. these are people who have been laid off through no fault of their own. they are looking for work. when wal-mart came to d.c., and asked for applications, 23,000 people applied for 600 jobs. that's the shortage of jobs for people. so these 1.3 million people are people who have exhausted their state benefits and are long-term
unemployed. historically we have never, never ended these emergency provisions when unemployment, long-term unemployment, has been 37%.gh as it is today, we have already reduced the of er, the average number unemployment insurance weeks in this country to 37, to 54 and i want to point out to the gentleman and everybody else if we don't act it, another 1.9 million unemployed people will lose every cent of their unemployment insurance the next ix months. so, under this bill s.g.r. is
now extended for three months. we asked the rules committee to make in order an amendment paid for to extend unemployment nsurance for three months. here's what we said. if we can prevent a 25% cut to doctors' pay, surely we can prevent a 100% cut for 1.3 million uninsured. and so what's been the response? the answer from house , an emptys it is this box. i ask for an additional 30 seconds. ms. slaughter: i'm sorry, mr. levin, all time has been allocated. the speaker pro tempore: the
gentleman's time has expired. mr. levin: i leave it with the point i wanted to make. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, at this time it's my great pleasure to yield three minutes to the gentleman from oklahoma, member of the rules committee, mr. tom cole. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for three minutes. mr. cole: i thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise today in support of the rule and the underlying legislation, the bipartisan budget act of 2013. i had the privilege of sitting as one of the budget conferees, it was an interesting process. but a productive one. this is the first time in a long time we have had a genuine compromise in this body, and frankly between this body and the administration, and between this body and the other chamber. i thank chairman ryan and chairman murray who worked together in good faith, worked together well, neither one of them violated their core principles but both of whom came together and did some pretty
a raordinary things and thus modest bill. first of all they actually added to deficit reduction over the window. literally we will have a somewhat smaller deficit and debt because of what they did than if we keep the current situation. secondly, they did something we all know needs to be done, they dealt a little bit with mandatory spending and redistributed those savings over to discretionary side of the budget. that's because they were able to do that that we are probably going to be able to protect our military from what would have been really devastating cuts under sequester. that's a pretty amazing achievement. the achievement to me that is the most impressive of all is that they managed to find a compromise that will restore regular order. we all know if this legislation passes the appropriators from the senate and appropriators from the house will be working over the holidays, probably come back and have an omnibus or some series of mini buses, but we'll
actually have somewhat a normal appropriations process. even more importantly because they have set a top line number for fiscal year 2015, we can have regular order work in this chamber all year next year. we will be spared the prospect of a government shutdown in january or again october. those are exceptional achievements. i wish it would have been more or different. i now i would have written it differently. i know my friends on the other side would have. we ought to take a step back and thank chairman ryan and thank chairman murray for what they did to restore the institution as much as what they did to try and work on the budget. they did it the right way. they did it together. it's an example we ought to follow. i urge the passage of this rule and the support and passage of the underlying legislation. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i am pleased to yield four minutes to the gentleman from maryland, the distinguished ranking member of
the committee on the budget, and congratulate him for his hard work, mr. van hollen. the speaker pro tempore: gentleman from maryland is recognized for four minutes. mr. van hollen: i thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my friend, ms. slaughter. i do believe that the budget agreement that was reached was a small but positive step forward. i plan to talk about that a little later today. but what i want to talk about right now is the abuse of process that has taken place in the last eight hours and changing the terms of that agreement. because during that agreement the democrats from the house and others put forward a proposal that said, as we deal with the budget issues we should also deal with what we call the doc fix, making sure that doctors are fully reimbursed to help medicare patients. we should also help folks who are about to lose their unemployment compensation. that's what we said, and we put it on paper, and offered it. we said if we do a doc fix for three months, we should do a u.i. extension for three months.
if we do a doc fix for a year, we should deal with the u.i. issue for a year. but that was not part of the budget negotiation even though we wanted to. and chairman ryan acknowledged that yesterday as has senator murray. they said we wouldn't deal with either of those two issues, doc fix or u.i. as part of the budget agreement. we would deal with them outside of that agreement. and yet the ink was barely dry, mr. speaker, on that agreement before the house republicans and the speaker of the house put forward a rule that injected the doc fix, which we support, into the budget agreement. so it's all going to be one whole thing. so they did that to take care of a real issue, the doc fix. but what did they leave out? they left out an extension of unemployment insurance for 1.3 million americans who are going to lose that important support three days after christmas. they left that out of that last-minute procedure. now, as mr. levin said he and i
went to the rules committee last night and said, all right, if we are going to fix the s.g.r. issue, let's deal with the unemployment compensation issue. we presented an amendment. i have it in my hand. three months. d we said we would pay for t and we paid for it, mr. woodall, in a way that's been agreed by on a bipartisan basis. mr. woodall, on a bipartisan basis. which is in the ag bill negotiations, farm bill negotiations we already agreed on a bipartisan and bicameral basis to get rid of these excessive direct payments, subsidies that go to agribusiness, we have agreed on that already. as of now we have agreed on it. let's use that savings, $6 billion of that savings, to make sure that 1.3 million americans aren't left out in the cold. so i would say to my friend, mr. woodall, if you want to make this a bipartisan agreement, all you have to do is vote for it.
and if you want to vote for it, you got to give this house an opportunity to vote for it. and yet while we are going to get a chance to vote on the doc fix and the budget agreement, the rules committee and the speaker of the house have told the american people, you won't allow a vote to help 1.3 million americans who are going to be left out in the cold. and not just them and their struggling families, but the congressional budget office tells us that their surrounding communities are going to be hurt, too. why? they won't be able to make the rent payments. they won't be able to go out to the local stores around christmastime and the holiday season to buy gifts. that hurts local merchants, small businesses. in fact, the congressional budget office tells us, we'll have 200,000 fewer of those jobs, private sector jobs, as a result of not extending unemployment insurance. so, mr. speaker, it's absolutely unconscionable and shameful that after we reached an agreement
where we had wanted to include a fixed s.g.r. in the agreement but it was decided not to, that we would have this last-minute parachute down and leave the 1.3 million americans out in the cold. that's shameful. we should allow a vote. if you vote against the previous question, we'll have a chance to do our job and vote on that. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. to say i think the gentleman characterized exactly right. in his characterization all we ve to do to make his idea, bipartisan agreement idea is do it his way. that's not the way we reach agreements. mr. van hollen: would the gentleman yield on that? mr. woodall: in just a minute i would be happy to yield. we have here on the floor a rule to bring bicameral, bipartisan agreements on the budget, bipartisan bicameral agreements on medicare and 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 rile thing for the american people using this is 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 one hour of debate on this entirely separate herb sure. what the gentleman characterized is the agreement within the budget committee is we weren't going to be able to find an answer to s.g.r. within the budget conference. we didn't. we found it outside of the conference. we didn't find an answer to my issues of medicare in the conference. we didn't find answers to facing social security in the conference. many things i wanted we didn't find in the conference. the commitment that was made was deal with u.i. outside of the conference. i don't sit on any of the relevant committees for u.i., but i take folks at their word 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, some of the finest minds in this congress are focusing this energy on this hour while we are trying to move
things forward that we do agree on instead of focusing on trying to find that agreement on things we do not yet agree on but could agree on if folks would focus their energies in that direction. my uld be happy to yield to friend. mr. van hollen: we have not seen a proposal. we paid for this proposal in a way that has bipartisan support. i would just say the question is whether we should be able to to vote on it. my colleague and friend can vote against it but i think the american people deserve a vote on this. mr. woodall: reclaiming my time, i would say to my friend, 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 condition collusion? as much as has been said here on the floor, but the facts are, time and time and time again, these provisions have been extended and they were not extended january, 2013, february they were ary, 2012, not extended on party line votes alone, they were extended in a bipartisan, bicameral way. just one moment i'd be happy to yield to my friend. folks back home are so frustrated, mr. speaker. they know we can argue with each other. we do that well every single day. today we have the opportunity in this rule to move forward those things that we have not found 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 answers. i'd be happy to yield 30 seconds to my friend. mr. levin: i appreciate your courtesy, i always appreciate coming before the rules committee. just two points, first of all, maybe three quick ones, s.d.r. was outside the budget agreement. it was decided to place it within it. all we're asking is for a vote on u.i. and the third point, december 28 is a few days away. livelihood on the of 1.3 million people.
so if you say today that the speaker will sit down with us and a-- in a bipartisan basis, today and tomorrow, and find an answer, fine. but just to say, you're skipping town, not addressing this, and leaving an empty box, that's not a good answer. mr. woodall: i would say to my friend, suggesting anyone is skipping town is also not a good answer. what the gentleman knows, what the gentleman knows well, so frustrating, mr. speaker, because again, much to the surprise of the odds makes across this country, we've 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 agreements, mr. speaker. i say to my folks back home, mr. speaker, it's not -- it is not the happiest day in the life of their seventh district congressman that we have the 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. and while i appreciate the opportunity to speak on behalf of the speaker, perhaps one day i'llm speaker of the house have the power to do those things by myself, i think if you asked this speaker he'd say he doesn't have the power to do things aloan, it takes herding 435 other cats to make that happen. we have hard-fought successes
for the american people. not frivolous things. my colleague mentioned medical research. i'm a huge believer in medical research. i'm a huge believer in n.i.h. c.d.c. is stationed in my home state of geavement we have an opportunity to restore some funding to those two agencies that do amazing work on behalf of all americans. in the case of the c.d.c. on behalf of the world. we should take advantage of these successes, mr. speaker, and then we should show up again, maybe it's not even tomorrow. maybe it's the very next hour, and build on these successes to do more. but we've 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. yield forhe gentleman 30 seconds? mr. woodall: i would say to my
friend we're lopsided on time. if the gentlelady runs out later in the hour i'll be happy to yield to my friend. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter spm i'm going to yield mr. van hollen 30 seconds. his is very important. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. van hollen: i thank my friend, ms. slaughter. the gentleman is right. i support the bipartisan agreement greement, ting ast small step forward. but the gentleman knows we'll be debating that issue later this afternoon. right now year debating the rule of the house and that rule parachuted in a doc fix for three month which is we support but our republican colleagues denied this house and the american people an opportunity to vote to extend u.i. in that rule. that's what we're debating right now, mr. woodall. you know that this is about the rule and the way the rule was structured, i'm on ms. slaughter's time, the way the rule was structured was to deny the people of this country a vote to help 1.3 million americans and that's -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time is expire. the chair would inform the
members, the gentlewoman from new york has 15 minutes the maining the gentleman from georgia has 7 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentlewoman from new york. ms. slaughter texas i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from new york mitigating circumstance colleague, the ranking member on the committee for small business, ms. velazquez. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. velazquez: thank you, mr. speaker, i thank the gentlelady from new york for yielding. ppt 3 million americans will lose their unemployment benefits they have relied on to buy groceries and keep it a roof other their heads. and no, we are not creating fear. for 1.3 he reality million americans who every day get up and go out to the job market to find out that there's no jobs available. this is the reality of american children who are suffering.
s the reality of 1.3 million individuals in this country who do not know how they can pay for the next meal or how can they pay for their rent. this is not the american way. we took care of the doctors, we took care of big farmers. at a time when the economy is still struggling in the wake of the 2008 financial collapse, we economic be revoking system from job seekers while millions of americans are fighting to get back to work. last year, unemployment insurance kept 2.5 million americans and millions of children out of poverty. if long-term jobless benefits are allowed to expire, next year there will be nothing to protect these families from long spells of unemployment. unfortunately this budget fails
to extend the unemployment insurance millions of americans rely on to make ends meet. allowing jobless benefits to expire will not put people back to work. it will just make it harder for families to pay the bills and discourage people from seeking unemployment. i urge my colleagues to continue fighting for struggling americans. and i hope that americans are paying close attention to what is happening in congress today. i urge a no vote on this rule. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself 30 seconds. to remind my colleagues about the successes that we have had when we work together and about the terrible, terrible failures we have had when we decide
fussing with each ore is better than seeking loverple solutions. one issue at the time we can make a difference, i'm glad my colleagues on the republican side of the aisle have not come down to express their disappointments about everything that wasn't included. i hope we'll be able to use this time to celebrate our successes on those things that were included and rise tomorrow to solve the rest. i reserve. ms. slauger: i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentlelady from california, the democrat leader, ms. pelosi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. pelosi: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentlelady from new york for yielding, our ranking member on the rules committee and thank her and our colleagues on that committee for trying so hard to have this rule contain an amendment that will allow us to vote on the extension of unemployment insurance for all -- for over 1.3 million americans who will lose those
benefits if we do not pass that extension. i would particularly salute congressman sandy levin of michigan, the ranking member on the ways and means committee, for his relentless championing of fairness to the american people. we come here to talk about a bill that is to end the sequester. and end the sequester it does. i commend the conferees. i'm proud of the work of congressman chris van hollen, the ranking member of the budget committee on the democratic de, knee to lowey our -- nitalow wie, representative clyburn, i thank them for taking this to a place, fighting toyota a draw so we come to the floor. but the opportunity was so much greater and apparently the republicans never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity when it comes to creating jobs. mr. van hollen had in his bill
just a few points in terms of priorities. one was to create jobs and economic growth for our country. in the short-term and in the long-term. f we closed one -- close a loophole, build the infrastruck of america. close a loophole, build a bridge. close a loophole, tax loophole for special interest, invest in the human infrastructure of our country. early childhood education. long-term economic growth. close a loophole. pay for unemployment insurance. i don't think it has to be paid for because it's emergency spending but nonetheless, let's have an opportunity to vote to extend unemployment benefits. when we do not -- when we ignore those investments in the future, we're not reducing the deficit. we're increasing the deficit. nothing brings more money to the frshry than creating jobs and the revenue that deuces it.
nothing brings more money than thes of the american people starting with early childhood education. and as far as unemployment benefits are concerned, the economic impact is clear. every dollar spent on unemployment benefits go grow -- grows the economy by $1.5 to, according to moody's analytics. $1.50 for every $1 we spend. that's a conservative estimate. failing to extend unemployment benefits will cost us 200,000 jobs other the next year. we can't do that a recent resport shows that extending u.i. instead would produce 300,000 jobs. so again, this money is spent immediately, injects demand into the economy, creates jobs, grows the economy, as well as honoring our social compact that we have with the american people. people work hard, play by the rules, lose their job through no fault of their own.
insurance is what they have. we should honor that insurance. so it's disappointing, yes, because this package is so limited but as i said, it was fight to a draw. i recommend that our colleagues vote to support it. so we can take it off the table and make way for the discussion we should be having about comprehensive immigration reform. the votes are here. give us a vote, mr. speaker. passing a farm bill. very important to the economy of our country. raise the minimum wage. nearly 2/3 of the people making minimum wage are women. paycheck equity. tax fairness in the workplace for women. the list goes on and on. enda, ending discrimination against lgbt community people in the workplace. there's so many items on the agenda that have the support of me peern people in large
numbers. yesterday was the anniversary of newtown, pass the brady background bill. all these things are an agenda we have neglected up until now, we haven't had time for it of i guess they haven't been priorities for this congress but they are priorities for the american people. and for the democrats in congress. one reason to vote for this package even though you think it's meager and may not like all its priorities as the gentleman said is to at least have agreement on the budget that enables us to move forward for bigger fights that will improve policy, improve the lives of the american people, honor our responsibilities to them. but i urge our colleagues to vote for the budget but to vote against this rule because this rule says no. it says no to the congress. we are not even going to allow you to speak or vote on unemployment insurance benefits extension.
it says no to the american people. if you work hard and play by the rules and lose your job through no fault of your own, the safety net isn't there. and that safety net is not there just for individuals. it's there for the system. our beautiful free market system goes in cycles, and sometimes unemployment is higher than others and there are outside forces at work that people lose their jobs because of. so it's about a safety net for our economic system as well as for individuals. why, why would they not allow us to bring this up and extension this extension? is it the money? if it's the money we'll find it. the price? do you think the price is too hard to give people dignity? to allow them to keep their homes and meet the needs of their children? two million children would be affected by this. tens of thousands of veterans affected by this. we care about veterans here. we care about children here.
but apparently not enough to extend unemployment benefits. so why, my republican colleagues, would they not -- would you not allow us to have a vote on this? i know the support is there on the republican side. i know that the democrats would vote 100% for this. do you not believe that these people are worthy of receiving an unemployment insurance? i say insurance, that's something paid in to benefit check. if so, let the american people know that. but this debate will not end today. while you may not give us the vote on the floor to extend these benefits, we see where everybody is on the subject and why, this fight will continue because this is about the morality of our country. the respect that we have for people. the value that we place on work. the pride we take in a great
work ethic of the american people. sometimes it just seems the harder they work, the it deck stacked against them, and this congress is saying this deck is not going to include you as we deal out the cards. it's really -- i can't explain it to anybody except to say it's a values decision, and apparently there's not enough shared values on the subject of respect we should have for our workers to even honor the subject with a vote on the floor of the house. it's an outrageous rule to come to the floor. i thank you, madam chair, for fighting it. i urge a very strong no vote on the rule. a vote no on the previous question which would allow us to bring -- what are you afraid of? you afraid of the vote? afraid of working people who are out of a job? what are you afraid of? let us have a vote on the floor. with that, mr. speaker, urging a
no vote on the rule. a yes on the bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: i yield myself such time as i may consume to go back to the place i was earlier. 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, 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 would lose access to their doctor and lose access to their pharmaceuticals because of obamacare. those fears have been realized. that's exactly what happened to those patients. but these fears are not realized. i want to make clear to everybody back home, i talk to constituents every day who are losing their jobs, but 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 to them en available will continue to be available to them. fear not from what you're hearing on 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 have paid your insurance premiums for unemployment insurance, all of those federal weeks that have been there not for a year, not for five years, but for decades, those will still be there for you, fear no. that's 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 respect, rye spect, 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 agreements 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 -- >> will the gentleman yield? mr. woodall: i'm 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 their job because you have heavy hand of government son 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. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: i have to give myself 30 seconds. mr. woodall, if you believe anything at all that you have just said, i understand what's going on here. first blame everything in the world on obamacare. i will not. to try to give 350e78 health insurance is somehow a crime in
the house of representatives. but the people we are talking about, unemployment have exhausted their unpliment. it -- unemployment. it will not be there, mr. woodall. they could lose their housing. they could lose their food. they may even be put into the streets. there is a meanness that's going on in this -- absolutely -- mr. woodall: i did not mean to suggest there is meanness going on. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. ms. slaughter: i didn't get to speak because he took it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. who yields time? the chair would remind all members to direct their remarks to the chair. ms. slaughter: i'd like to, mr. speaker. and i started out that way. thank you very much. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york, energy and commerce and environment subcommittee ranking member, mr. tonko. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mr. tonko: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. and absolutely those benefits
have been exhausted and i think that needs to be very clear here. while this bunt -- budget compromise is not perfect, i would like to highlight a provision to reduce our deficit. i have tried to change a formula for capping reimbursement for federal contractor executives and employees. due to a flaw in the formula, taxpayer funded salaries have spiraled out of control in recent years. just this month o.m.b. announced it was required to raise the cap to over $950,000 per year. $950,000. while we debate on an ability to afford essential services for our most vulnerable citizens, for extending unemployment insurance, we are paying private sector executives nearly $1 million salaries? this agreement sets the cap at $487,000. personally i would have preferred the cap to be set at $230,700. the vice president's salary as stated in my legislation. but this is an important step and sensible compromise to
restoring sanity to taxpayer funded salaries. just a sampling, within g.a.o., with g.a.o. within the department of defense, found 7% of their contracts when reduced to this level would save hundreds of millions of dollars. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. i thank again again the gentlelady for yielding. the speaker pro tempore: the chair informs members that the gentleman from georgia has 4 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentlewoman from new york has 10 minutes remaining. mr. woodall: given that imbalance, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from california, a member of the committee on the budget, and author of an amendment we are trying to get here, ms. lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for two minutes. thank you very much. i want to thank the gentlelady for yielding and for her tremendous leadership in her
capacity as our ranking member on the rules committee. thank you so much for standing in strong opposition to this rule. as a member of the budget and appropriations committee, i really want to commend all my colleagues for putting forth a plan to replace some of the reckless sequester cuts that do continue to hurt families each and every day. yet this budget deal is really outrageous for what it doesn't do. it does nothing, nothing to extend emergency unemployment benefits to the millions of jobless workers in every state. as the center on budget and priorities report today points out, the failure to include any extension of federal emergency jobless benefits in the deal would likely negate any boost, any boost from sequester this deal would bring. i ask unanimous consent to add this report to the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. lee: over 170 democrats have joined my letter calling for an extension of this critical life line. it is really shameful republicans have refused to
include an extension of unemployment benefits. the least we can do for the millions of long-term unemployed who are struggling just to get by on this -- during this holiday season is to pass this three-month extension. this budget does nothing for the millions of jobless people and asks nothing from the people who caused our economic crisis and continues to benefit from economic inequality. please remember, this is not about showboating or statistics. we are talking about people's lives. we are talking about people living on the edge. we are talking about 1.3 million people who will lose unemployment benefits during this holiday season. it is cruel. it is morally wrong. and it is economically stupid. i hope that we can vote no on this rule and defeat the previous question so we can vote for a three-month extension of unemployment compensation. finally let me just say we must
do better. we must protect and expand the safety net that are the pillars of our society. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, i reserve the balance. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield one minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for one minute. it is very good we have a deal. the american people are frustrated and tired. so our offices are being bombarded by calls from people from all political perspectives the deal.are glad for and to be honest with you, i'm glad we have made some progress. many of us want to be part of the deal. but i know that it is equally
important to raise the concern faces across this, america who equal the 1.3 million number of americans who will lose their unemployment benefits. 3.5 million in 2014, 200,000 military veterans, and two million children. so we can't be only about ourself and this holiday season. particularly as we recognize the pope being made man of the year has spoken to the world eloquently about this whole issue of the vulnerable. this, mr. woodall, in the rules committee. let's put the van hollen-lee-levin amendment on the floor tonight, tomorrow. call us back, mr. boehner, call us back, mr. boehner. let us vote to provide for unemployment insurance for working men and women. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. jackson lee: will not have a tear of desperation -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the the gentlelady's time has
expired. ms. jackson lee: we cannot allow this to happen this this season of joy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman will suspend. the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time it's my great pleasure to yield one minute to the gentleman from indiana, mr. messer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for one minute. mr. messer: i thank you the gentleman from georgia for yielding his time. i rise in support of the bipartisan budget act, the underlying rule, and chairman ryan's hard work. . this isn't a perfect deal but it's better than ea the alternative. it replaces some of the cuts called for by sequestration and replaces them with smarter ones. it makes modest reforms that will reduce the deficit without raising taxes. it continue ours nation's trajectory toward a more fiscally responsible government. i agree with those critics who say that this bill doesn't solve all our nation's budget problems
but no can't always be the answer. reality is that we have a democratic president and a democratic led senate. given that reality, this is a solid deal. virtually everyone agrees we don't need another government shutdown. it's time to put politics aside and make genuine progress on ending wasteful washington spending. s that good first step in that direction. let's not be afraid to take that step and move forward toward common ground from which we can continue fighting for fiscal sanity for hardworking taxpayers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from illinois, a member of the committee on ways and means, mr. davis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one and a half minutes. mr. davis: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank the ranking member for yielding. i rise in opposition to this rule and i don't do so because it gives us limited opportunity
to keep the government open for a few days. and i know that we are going to allow our physicians to practice medicine so that they can take care of medicare patients for a few more days. what it does not do, it does not extend unemployment insurance for those two million or more people who will not have it. this is not going to be a good christmas for many of the people in my district. it's going to be just the opposite. so i vote against the rule so that we can in fact come back and provide unemployment compensation to those millions who need it and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the entleman from georgia. mr. woodall: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the yom from new york. ms. slaughter: i'm pleased to yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from rhode island, mr. cicilline. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one and a half minutes.
mr. cicilline: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. the budget deal we're voting on today is a step in the right direction because it blunts some sequestration. but a critical piece is missing, extending unemployment benefits that are due to expire at the end of this year. it's a disgrace that this body would consider leaving town without finishing our work. just three days after christmas, 1.3 million americans struggling to find work will immediately be thrown out into the cold and lose their unemployment assistance, including 4,900 rhode islanders who will lose their benefits on december 28. much of the economic gain achieved in this budget deal will be nearly wiped out by failing to extend unemployment insurance. mr. speaker, how do you plan to explain to your constituents, your three-week vacation, when this you have constituents who won't be able to keep the heat on or put the next meal on their dinner table because congress
failed to do its job. we should every day but especially in this time of year be thinking of others and taking care of one another, not walking away from responsibilities and ignoring the challenges facing our fellow citizens. we have 15 days to figure this out. what's the rush to leave town? it won't take much time to resolve this problem because we have the answer. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the house call up h.r. 3546 for immediate consideration, this will extend unemployment benefits if 1.3 million americans. the speaker pro tempore: the forleman from georgia yield -- >> will the gentleman yield for unanimous consent request? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. r. cicilline: i -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york. ms. slaughter: i yield one
minute to the gentlelady from the district of columbia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. norton: i don't know how my threes can go home leaving the unemployeed with no christmas at all. i know it eases sequestration, that's a small favor given that sequestration is the only bill that nobody wanted that came into existence in this country but the ka louse treatment of the unemployeed is unforgivable, especially at this season. i'm outraged about the notion about the insentive to remain on unemployment insurance, the benefits from -- benefits per week have gone down one third across the states. , we are hard times exposing our economy itself because of the los of unemployment insurance means the jobs because of
the loss of unemployment insurance. this bill is counterproductive, it's counterintuitive, it spoils an otherwise acceptable bill and makes a mockery of christmas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the chair would inform each side they each have 3 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: may i inquire if the gentleman has further speakers? i'm prepared to close. mr. woodall: i'm the final speaker on our side. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: this is a step in the right direction but we must improve this bill before we vote on final pass am. what have we learned here today? we learned that in the budget gos it was determined that the doc fix, as we call it, doctors patients -- payments and unemployment insurance were not in the scope of what they were doing, they would do that
separately, then unbeknownst to doc fix was e, the included. it was supposed to be separate, it was part of the rule and would be voted on when we vote for the rule today. only thing left out was unemployment extension. i think we know why. we heard from my colleague he thinks there's plenty of money out there they're not going to go without a thing. totally untrue. it would be a tragedy of gigantic proportions if this house turned down extension of unemployment benefits because some members believe that it's not going to happen. it is going to happen. 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 three-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 are
outnumbered considerably, nine to four but nonetheless we think it's important enough today to give every member of this house a second chance. and we're going to ask everybody who wants to make sure that people in their districts who are unemployed through no fault of their own, there has been sort of a prevailing thought we've heard from time to time, that if we don't extend unemployment, we'll teach them a lesson. we'll teach them not to have a job. they'll find out right away that's not the way to live, despite the fact, as was pointed out, 20,000 people applied for 600 jobs. gives you some idea of what that's like. some people have come before committees here with stacks of resumes that they've sent out as high as two feet with rejection notices they've got b they're 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, and that 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 too this rule, then i will be allowed to bring up the amendment that was turned down ast night to extend it for three months. imagine that. three 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, disabled, and the people who are lost their jobs, that we can say to them it doesn't matter here in the house of representatives if you're hungry if you're cold if you're going to lose the place that you live if your sustenance
is taken away from you. we don't ware of tissue we dent care. maybe some church somewhere, some temple, some synagogue will take care of you. if we defeat the previous question i'll offer an amendment to the rule to allow the house to extend unemployment insurance for $1.3 million an i urge my colleagues to vote no. 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 previous question and i urge a no vote on the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: i yield myself the plans of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three and a half minutes. mr. woodall: i'm surprised we've spent most of the hour talking about what's not in the rule today. we have great cause for celebration for what is in this rule today. it's not been months, it's been years we have been working to get a farm bill. there's an extension that this rule allows to be voted on that
will bring us the next 3 days that agreement that we have been so long searching for. mr. speaker, it's been since 1997 that the s.g.r. has been part of our lynn go here, that's the 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's actually a three-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 the year every year, their access to care will be threatened. an perhaps most importantly, mr. speaker, this rule allows for a vote on the bipartisan, bicameral budget agreement. now this is not a grand agreement, it's not the grand agreement i've been fighting for in the budget committee for the last three years, but what it is is a small step in the right direction. the reason it's 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 discriminant manner. for me that's national security. the concern has always been national security. today the air force units have reduced their training activities by about 25%. mr. speaker. with the sequester, only two of 43bury gade combat teams, active brigade combat teams are ready and available for deployment two. of 43. we absolutely must rein in federal spending and 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're doing too much here as opposed to not enough, it 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 toward our national security. i'll 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 a no vote on my colleagues' motion, so that we do those things we were able to do -- we are able to do today and tomorrow eternally press forward. i yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. ms. slaughter: i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those in favor of taking a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. . members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and 9 of rule 20, this 15 minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by five-minute votes on adoption of house resolution 438 if ordered and
aeing to the speaker's approval of the journal if ordered and again this is a 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the house will be in order. the speaker: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, i have the honor to transmit herewith the facsimile copy of a letter received from the honorable william francis galvin, secretary of the commonwealth of massachusetts indicating that, according to the unofficial returns of the
special election held december 0, 2013, the honorable katherine m. clark was elected to congress for the fifth congressional district, commonwealth of massachusetts. with best wishes i am, sincerely karen l. haas, clerk. the speaker: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. neal, rise? mr. neal: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from the commonwealth of massachusetts, the honorable katherine m. clerk, be permitted to take the oath of office today. her certificate of election is in front of you. there is no contest and there is no question that's been raised with regard to her election. the speaker: without objection. will representative-elect clark and the members of the massachusetts delegation present themselves in the well of the house and will all members rise? and will the member-elect please raise your right hand. do you solemnly support that you'll support and defend the constitution of the united
states against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that you take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which you are about to enter, so help you god? ms. clarke: i do. the speaker: congratulations. you are now a member of the 113th congress. -- ms. clark: i do. the speaker: congratulations. you are now a member of the 113th congress. the speaker: without objection, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. neal, is recognized for one minute. mr. neal: mr. speaker, it's a pleasure for me to introduce
katherine clark with the always important reminder that there are fewer than 12,000 men and women who have add the honor in american history of taking this oath. this institution has been home to presidents of the united states, members of the supreme court, members of the united states senate who have gone far and wide in helping america to succeed every day. katherine clark is one of those individuals who has now joined this important and august body, succeeds, again, a very favored colleague of ours who served in this institution with distinction for 37 years, senator ed markey.
mr. speaker, katherine clark is well-grounded in local government, having served at the school committee level. she served in the legislature as a member of the house of representatives and as a member of the massachusetts senate. she has also served time as a prosecutor. she is well distinguished in the state of massachusetts and won a very handsome victory. it's an honor for me to submit to you for the first time the honorable katherine m. clark from the state of massachusetts. . . . the speaker: if the gentlelady ill suspend
the speaker pro tempore: if the yeal will suspend. the house will be in order. the gentlelady may proceed. ms. clarke: thank you, mr. speaker. leader pa lowsy, congressman neal, and the massachusetts delegation, and all of you for this very warm welcome. thank you to my family and friends who are here with me today. my husband, rodney, and my three sons, adyson, jere red, and nathaniel whose love every day makes me the luckiest mom and wife in the world. my parents, chan and judy clark, i thank you -- thank them for
the love and support and teaching me even when times are hard approach life with gratitude, optimism, respect for others, and a sense of adventure. myelin yause -- myin laws, i'm so grateful for all they do to keep our family running smoothly and all the love they give us. and my brother, john, and his partner, justin, thank you for being here and for all your support. and i'm so grateful to the voters of the massachusetts 5th congressional district for their confidence and the profound privilege of representing them. senator markey, you set a
standard of excellence during your time in the house. i look forward to carrying on your work for the people of our district and partnering with you and the entire massachusetts delegation to move massachusetts and our country forward. thank you. massachusetts fifth from revere to came brinl, waltham to freedomingham is home to some of the country's and the world's most respected universities and innovative companies. we are deeply -- >> mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady will suspend. he house will be in order. ms. clark: we are proud of these incredible institutions, but what defines the fifth district
is its families. and as i have talked with families around their kitchen tables, i found they are just like mine and i'm sure they are just like yours. we are teachers, small business owners, c.e.o.'s, and machinists. we work in stock rooms and board rooms. we are recent immigrants, and we are desendents from early american settlers. we are of all political ideologies and, yes, deep in the heart of red sox nation we even have a few yankees fans. what unites our families is they work hard, play by the rules, and what they ask in return is a fair shot at the american dream. our families want to find a good job, send their children to great schools, and count on a secure retirement. they want to know that the
issues they talk about around their kitchen tables are the issues that we'll talk about here in congress. i am honored to join the massachusetts delegation and represent the peoples of the fifth congressional district in this house of representatives. i look forward to working together with each of you for the families of my district, the commonwealth of massachusetts, and the united states of america. thank you, mr. speaker, and i ield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: under clause d -- under clause 5-d of
rule 20, the chair announces to the house that in light of the administration of the oath to the gentlewoman from massachusetts, the whole number of the house is now 433. without objection, five-minute voting will continue. the question is on adoption of house resolution 438. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have t the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i request the yeas and nays. the speaker: those favoring the vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. record. it's a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 226. the nays are 195. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. the jere will put de novo. the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the journal stands approved. he gentleman from georgia.
those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of isresentatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 240. the nays are 147. the journal stands approved. ith two present. the chair lays before the house n enrolled bill. the clerk: h.r. 2871, an act to amendment title 28 united states code to modify the composition of the southern jew kirble district of mths to improve judicial efficiency and for other purposes.
the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered or on which the vote incurs objection under clause 6 f rule 20. record votes on postponed questions will be taken later. the house will be in order. members are asked to remove their conversations from the floor. to clear the well and the aisles.
to suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 441. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 441, resolution providing for the concurrence by the house in the senate amendments to h.r. 3304 with an amendment. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, mr. mckeon, and the gentleman from washington, mr. smith, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and and insert remarks extraneous material on the matter under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mckeon: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mckeon: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of the fiscal year 2014 national defense authorization act. the ndaa is the key mechanism by which the congress fulfills its primary constitutional responsibility to provide for
the common defense and this year will mark the 52nd consecutive year we have completed our work. the ndaa passed the armed services committee with a vote of 59-2. it passed the full house by a margin of 315-108. likewise, the senate voted its version of the bill out of committee by a vote of 23-3. this year we had unique challenges in bringing back a bipartisan, bicameral deal to the house for final consideration. yet, despite those obstacles we were able to negotiate a bipartisan bill with our senate colleagues. i'm especially grateful to ranking member adam smith, as well as chairman levin and ranking member inhofe of the senate armed services committee. they all rolled up their sleeves and we got the bill done in the allotted time. and believe me, that was no small hill to climb. on a related note, i'd be
remiss to note that today we'll be voting on another hard-fought measure that's critical to defense. we have in sight a budget agreement for the next two years that provides a measure of predictability for our military. as we take the first steps to get this deal enacted, i wanted to ensure members that the ndaa's authorization levels remains in compliance with the budget control act and the house, the senate and the republican study committee approved budgets for 2014. what makes this bill such an important piece of legislation are the vital authorities contained thrin which is why -- therein which is why chairman dempsey, general amos, commandant of the marine corps, "the washington post," the national guard bureau and others all weighed in this week urging us to complete consideration of the bill. this legislation pays our troops and their families. it keeps our navy fleet sailing
and military aircraft flying. it maintains a strong nuclear deterrent. this year's ndaa also provides badly needed reforms to help alleviate the crisis of sexual assault in the military. i want to thank congressman mike turner, niki tsongas of our committee for leading a bipartisan group of members who worked tirelessly on those reforms. also, joe wilson, chairman of the subcommittee, and susan davis, his ranking member for the efforts they made on this issue. they were long overdue. the ndaa covers many more critical issues, but i will close in the interest of time. before i do i'd like to thank all our members of the armed services committee for their efforts. i'm grateful not only for the hardworking chairs and ranking members of the house but for all members of this body for recognizing the importance of this vital piece of legislation.
along with all members of our staff on both sides of the aisle. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: i thank you, mr. chairman. i rise to claim the time -- other 20 minutes -- in opposition though i am not opposed. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: i yield myself four minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: i want to echo the chairman's words how important it is we pass this piece of legislation. it is critical to our national security and critical to supporting our troops. to make sure they get the pay and the support that they need to do the job that we all have asked them to do. this is never an easy process. we work between the two of us and between our committees and worked with the senate, house, republican, bipartisan and bicameral and i'm sure any one of us were so designated as god of this piece of legislation, there are things we would change about it, but that is
the nature of the legislative process. you come together, you compromise and you put together the best product that all of you can agree on and that's what we've done. and to not pass this at this point is to jeopardize our national security and to not support our troops. i think this is an excellent compromise and something that needs to be passed. i think we would all agree that we wish we could have done through the normal conference committee process, but the senate has their rules and they had difficulty getting to that point, but i want to assure everybody that this was a fully negotiated piece of legislation. we engaged the senate, both republican and democrat, chairman mckeon and i worked very closely together, our staffs worked very closely together. this is an excellent, important bill that needs to be passed for all of the reasons that chairman mckeon mentioned. the steps forward it makes on sexual assault, the troops it gives to their troops as they are in battle in afghanistan in trying to protect our national security elsewhere. so i really want to urge everyone to make sure they vote