Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I don't think anybody in America believes the White House doesn't want to do something about that. The President of the United States has talked about it. In every one of his State of the Unions he talked about it. In this State of the Union, he talked about expanding manufacturing and training. So the President has talked about it, all the time about wanting to invest in giving the skills to American workers that they need to either stay employed or get the kind of skilled jobs that are available in our economy, that pay well. There are a number of bills, I will tell the majority leader, in the Make It In America agenda that I would love to work with the majority leader on that deal exactly with that. I have a bill myself--actually, I think somebody else introduced it--called the Jobs bill, which is job opportunities between our shores, which is exactly on point of dealing with advanced manufacturers, community colleges, and other organizations in cooperation with work investment boards to identify what skills are needed, to invest in training. The gentleman is correct, we all want to do that, and we certainly ought to be able to work towards that. He is incorrect in that the President has not only not focused on that, he has worked on that. The Secretary of Labor, Tom Perez, has worked on it; Penny Pritzker, the Secretary of Commerce, is very committed to that end; as is Arne Duncan, the Secretary of Education, and they have all talked about that. So let us work on it. What the gentleman talked about, he cares a lot about, and I think he does. Mr. Speaker, I absolutely take him at his word. He cares about those people who have--through no fault of their own--lost their job, work wasn't available, they downsized, whatever, they lost their job. He said he is concerned about those people, as he should be, as I am, as we all are. But one of the real tragedies is, particularly with those folks who are 45 or 50 and above, once they have lost a job, they have a terrible time in this economy finding a job. There are three people looking for every one job that is available. And a lot of those people, as the gentleman has observed, don't have the skills. So the issue is not just about giving them skills; it is, in the interim, do we let them and their families fall through the cracks, fall through a safety net, fall out of the insurance that they paid into, their employer paid into, in the event they lost their job they would not lose the ability to support themselves to put some food on their table? That is why we are so adamant that unemployment insurance be extended. Mr. Speaker, as I said, it has been extended under every administration when the facts were as they are today--Republican administration, Democratic administration--for the reasons that the majority leader pointed out. We care about those people. We are worried about those people. So I would hope that that would be on the floor. On the SGR, let me close by suggesting that there is, as the gentleman knows, an Overseas Contingency Operations account. The CBO scores that significantly. The good news is that we are not spending as much money as we were. We spent over a trillion dollars in the last decade in Afghanistan and Iraq. Better to spend that money in this instance here at home. I would suggest, respectfully, that that is one alternative to doing what the gentleman says we all want to do, and that is fix the sustainable growth rate on a permanent basis so that doctors and Medicare patients are not worried about whether their medical services are going to be available to them. I would hope we would look at that alternative, and I would be glad to discuss with the majority leader other alternatives as well. Unless the majority leader has anything further to say, thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

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

Mr. HOYER

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

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information. I note that he indicates that we probably will not be able to accomplish the omnibus by the end of next week and, therefore, a CR may be required. I know that all of us feel that that needs to be accomplished as quickly as possible. I would point out to the gentleman in conversations that he says it is going to be on suspension. I will support it on suspension, urge my colleagues to support it on suspension. Can the gentleman tell me, however, how long that CR will go that will affect us somewhat?

Mr. HOYER. I hope that was not a Freudian slip of our confidence in the ability to get that done as quickly as we would like. In any event, I think that is appropriate, and I am hopeful that we can, in fact, accomplish that. I want to tell the majority leader from my perspective that if we don't get that done in the short term, then I would be very reluctant to support continuing resolutions at the level which has now been substituted for the agreement that was reached in the bipartisan budget agreement. There are substantial differences, as you know, in the 302(a) allocation, the allocation of discretionary spending, one at $1.012 trillion and one at $986 billion, so that there is a substantial discrepancy between those figures. We reached agreement on the higher number. The Senate came down about 45, the House went up about 45 and reached a compromise. I think America was pleased that we reached a compromise. I would want to be on the record as saying that if we went to longer term CRs, I would want to have some serious discussions about the level of those CRs in terms of the operations of government. The other issue I wanted to ask the gentleman about, as you know, we had a previous question yesterday. That previous question, had it been defeated, would have allowed the House to consider the extension of unemployment insurance for 3 months, consistent with what the Senate had proposed. Now, the Senate has not reached agreement on this issue, but unfortunately that has not been considered on the floor this week. As the gentleman knows, 72,000 people a week are losing their unemployment insurance. That adds to 1.3 million that have already lost their own insurance on December 28. I know it is not listed on your sheet, nor did you mention it in your comments on the floor. Can the gentleman tell me whether there is any prospect of the unemployment insurance bill coming to this floor? Mr. Tierney has a bill that he has introduced that I think probably enjoys, at this point in time, well over 150 Democrats, and I think all Democrats will sign on to it. I would hope that we together, as we did when President Bush was President, and we did it five times, I would hope that we could extend unemployment for those people who were relying on it to put food on their tables. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments. First, I would say, there is nothing to disagree with in what the gentleman has said. We do want to focus on jobs. We do want to focus on creating jobs. We do want to focus on growing the economy. The gentleman is absolutely correct. As a matter of fact, as the gentleman knows, he and I have discussed the agenda that Democrats have been talking about for 2\1/2\ years, and it is called Make It In America. That Make It In America agenda focuses on manufacturing and growing opportunities in this country for good jobs for skilled workers and unskilled workers, frankly, but mainly skilled workers in the new manufacturing environment in which we find ourselves. That ought to be our long-term objective. I would say very candidly, Mr. Speaker, we ought not in the short term forget those who have been deeply damaged by the economic dislocation that has occurred in our society, in our country, and frankly globally over the past 5 years, or actually starting in December of '07. We ought not to forget those people, because while a future investment is very interesting to them, and I am sure important to them, their critical interest is in putting food on their table today, tomorrow, and the next day. I think the richest country on the face of the Earth could do both, I tell the gentleman. And I think that we ought to do both, and we have done both in the past. We had some job figures that were out today, apparently 87,000 jobs in the private sector. That's not enough. We lost 13,000 in the public sector apparently for a net of 74,000 appreciation of jobs. That's not nearly enough. The gentleman would agree, I know, to solve the problem that we have. The gentleman talked about the SKILLS Act. That bill would freeze the Workforce Investment Act program funding for fiscal years 2014 to 2020. We would make no more investment in doing what the gentleman has said we want to do. It has already been cut by half since 2001 and would also consolidate or eliminate 35 programs, most of them the Workforce Incentive Act programs, into State block grants that they could spend on things of their choice. I am not saying that some States wouldn't make good choices. I think they would. Other States would make different choices, and we may or may not agree with those. But I certainly tell the gentleman, and he and I have had the opportunity talking together, the Make It In America agenda, or a jobs agenda, or whatever that agenda is called, is certainly something we ought to pursue. Let me transition, if I might, Mr. Leader, to talk about another issue which analysis of almost every economist and the Congressional Budget Office say will help grow the economy, and that is comprehensive immigration reform. We continue to believe that that is one of the most important issues that this Congress in this second session of the Congress ought to deal with. Can the gentleman indicate whether there is any possibility of either, as I said in weeks past, bringing the four bills that came out of the Judiciary Committee or the border security bill that came out of the Homeland Security Committee, I might say, unanimously? None of those five bills have been brought to the floor. The Speaker said just the other day, I am trying to find some way to get this thing done. ``Thing'' being immigration reform. He said, It is, as you know, not easy. Not going to be an easy path forward, but I made it clear since the day after the election, it is time to get this done. The Speaker said that November 13, 2013, a couple months ago. We are very, very hopeful that the Speaker will pursue that, the House will pursue that, and the majority leader will put on the floor legislation on which we can act. We may or may not agree with the legislation brought to the floor, but we think it needs to be given attention, consistent with Speaker Boehner's observation, and CBO's assertion, that that would have a substantially positive effect on growing the economy and creating jobs. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the leader for his comments. Certainly we are not proponents of ``my way or the highway,'' and I am glad, I do believe, that hopefully the majority leader is not either. Briefly, on the SKILLS Act, we have legislation, of course, on our side of the aisle, a number of pieces of legislation which deal with training, job skills, and we are certainly prepared to work on those. Unfortunately, as the gentleman knows, that bill passed out in a partisan way. There were two Democrats who voted for it. But I am certainly willing to work with the gentleman, and I think our side of the aisle is willing to work with the gentleman to invest and to give flexibility so that we can recognize, obviously, that what may be needed in my district or the gentleman from Virginia's district is different from a district in Washington State or California or Texas or Florida or Maine. So I want to assure the gentleman that we are prepared to work on that. Next, can I ask you when those principles that you talked about might be expected, because I think that would be a very positive step forward. But, in my view, if we wait long, comprehensive immigration reform will not get accomplished, as I believe it should be, in the next few months. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. And in conclusion, let me simply say, Mr. Leader, that we welcome moving ahead on the omnibus. We think that is very critical. We hope that we can address the unemployment insurance issue, not as a substitute for focusing on growing jobs and growing the economy, which is essential, but in recognition that some 1.3 million people--growing by 72,000 people a week--are in deep distress, and we want to help them. We think that is the right thing to do. And we think America can do both, grow the economy and help those who have been hurt by the decrease in the availability of jobs available. Lastly, I might say, that we also hope that we can get to immigration reform as quickly as possible, and we look forward to seeing those principles. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I appreciate this opportunity to comment not only upon this rule which provides, of course, for mostly closed rules--no amendments, no ability to change or modify, particularly two bills that had no hearings, went to no committees, and were reported out doing stuff that we did for 2013 almost without exception--but what I really rise to say is that I want to urge every Member to vote against the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I know the American public will hear ``previous question.'' What does that mean? The previous question, if defeated, will give us the opportunity to put on this floor what the overwhelming majority of the American people want on this floor, which I understand the gentleman from Michigan, as I just was walking in, I think was talking about. That is to deal with the most pressing issue confronting this country right now today. That is that we have 1.3 million Americans who have simply been dropped through whatever safety net we thought we had constructed. So, Mr. Speaker, the American public understands, the previous question will give us the opportunity, if it is defeated, to put that legislation on the floor now, to extend for those 1.3 million people the help of the American people who want to do it. In every poll they say, no, we ought to have this help. When George W. Bush was President of the United States, five times we extended unemployment insurance for long-term unemployed--five times-- without paying for it. And make no mistake about it; the vote on the previous question is whether or not you want to give long-term unemployed who have lost their insurance and are having trouble putting food on their tables, if you want to give them help, you will vote ``no'' on the previous question. Don't hide behind a procedural issue. This is a substantive issue. This is an issue of whether we are going to give help now. The American public that is for this ought to be looking at it. And every Member who votes ``yes'' on the previous question is voting not-- not--to give help to those folks, 1.3 million of them, 20,000 veterans who can't find a job. And there is only one job available for every three people that are looking for a job.

Mr. HOYER. That is why George W. Bush extended unemployment. That is why we ought to do it. And we can do it. We have the ability to do it. Vote ``no'' on the previous question. It is a substantive vote on whether or not you want to help the long-term unemployed who have lost, as of December 28, 3 days after Christmas, the season of giving and caring, whether you want to give them the unemployment insurance that they count on to feed themselves and their families and have their heads above water. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule and urge a vote instead to bring to the floor a bill introduced by the ranking member of the ways and means committee, my friend Mr. Tierney. His bill will do what Congress ought to have done before we left for the holidays: extend the emergency unemployment insurance benefits that were cut off so suddenly for 1.3 million of our fellow citizens who are looking for work. It is shameful that Republicans continue to block an extension of this lifeline for so many who are struggling to find jobs and are facing an extremely difficult job market, where in some places there are three job seekers for each open position. Democrats will continue to put pressure on our colleagues across the aisle to work with us in a bipartisan way to extend these emergency benefits while our jobs recovery continues. Representative Tierney's bill would extend these benefits for three months to allow Congress time to work on a long-term solution. There is no reason why 1.3 million people--a number that will grow by an average 72,000 a week for as long as Congress fails to act--should have to go without the emergency income that supports them and their families. We need to promote job creation and get our people back to work, while at the same time ensuring that we're helping people stay out of poverty. I call on my Republican friends to join with us in extending these emergency benefits right now and then working together to invest in the economic competitiveness that will create the jobs we need.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentlelady for taking this time. I thank the gentlelady even more for taking the time and the focus and being indefatigable in making sure that the richest Nation on the face of the Earth focuses on the least of these in our country. I thank her for her leadership. I am proud that she is working on the Task Force on Poverty, Income Inequality, and Opportunity. And in chairing that effort for our caucus, she is doing an extraordinary job. It is time, however, that all of us continue to do an extraordinary job. When President Johnson stood in this Chamber at that rostrum, Mr. Speaker, on January 8, 1964, he declared an ``unconditional war on poverty in America.'' That has been said so many times today. He launched a legislative agenda that led to the creation of Medicare, Medicaid, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and nutrition assistance for those at risk of going hungry, particularly our children. Today, thanks to that war on poverty, infant mortality has substantially decreased, childhood malnutrition has fallen significantly, and college graduations have risen. But that is not to declare victory. There is much yet to be done. The poverty rate for senior citizens in 1959 was 35 percent. Today, it is 9 percent thanks to the New Deal and Great Society programs. Food stamps continue to keep as many as 4 million Americans out of poverty, which is why it is so critical to provide robust SNAP funding in the farm bill, Mr. Speaker. Fifty years, a half a century after President Johnson launched the war on poverty, as we take stock of the progress we have made, we must be candid in assessing the difficult challenges that remain before us. That is what Congresswoman Lee is bringing to our attention and to the attention of the country. Following the Great Recession, and with long-term unemployment higher than it was a few years ago, millions of our fellow Americans are today teetering on the edge of poverty while others still have yet to escape its grasp. In 2012, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, nearly 50 million people in America were poor in the richest land on the face of the Earth, and more than one in five of those were children. States and local governments, under pressure from reductions in Federal funding for domestic programs, are struggling to maintain the safety net that, for a generation, have placed a floor under those who have lost a job, fallen ill, or were born into dire circumstances. As middle class families have strained under the difficult conditions of the recession and its consequences, the lowest-income Americans have been forced to endure a severe lack of opportunities to enter the middle class. We want to promote jobs. We want to make sure the middle class can succeed, support themselves and their families and have the kind of life that we dream of and promise as an American. We also want to make sure that those who are not middle class can get into the middle class. In his State of the Union address in 1964, President Johnson said this: Very often, a lack of jobs and money is not the cause of poverty but the symptom. The cause may lie deeper in our failure to give our fellow citizens a fair chance to develop their own capacities, in a lack of education and training, in a lack of medical care and housing, in a lack of decent communities in which to live and bring up their children. Poverty is the result, not the cause. Central to our ability to sustain the American dream is our responsibility to one another to make upward mobility possible. Right now, 1.4 million Americans--right now, Mr. Speaker--are worrying about meeting their basic needs since emergency unemployment insurance was cut off on December 28 of last year, 3 days after Christmas, the season of giving, the season of caring, and the season of thinking about those who are in need. Every week that goes by without turning this lifeline back on will see another 72,000 Americans lose their emergency income. Congress has the ability to restore these benefits right now, and Democrats, proud of our history leading the war on poverty, will continue to push and demand for that extension. Democrats will keep fighting for a strong, secure, and growing middle class by working to raise the minimum wage--and I see my friend from Maryland (Mr. Delaney) in the back of the Chamber; Congressman Delaney has been leading an effort in our State to make sure that we raise the minimum wage--and making sure the Affordable Care Act expands access to quality health care as intended. We must also create a pathway to citizenship and opportunity for undocumented workers who are living in the shadows in poverty as part of comprehensive immigration reform, and we must be vigorous in enforcing our laws that prevent discrimination in housing, hiring, and access to education. Mr. Speaker, if we are to make serious progress in the war on poverty in the years to come, it will have to be as a result of both parties working together to prioritize economic opportunity and upward mobility. Mr. Speaker, I will say that there are Republican leaders, and I applaud them for it, who are talking about and focusing on those in poverty, those who have little in our country. I applaud them for talking, but talk is not enough. We must invest in making sure that they can avail themselves of the promise of America, not by telling the most vulnerable Americans that they will have to fend for themselves, that their fellow citizens will not lend a helping hand during their time of need. I'm glad, Mr. Speaker, that President Obama has chosen to make reducing economic inequality a focus in 2014. This, Mr. Speaker, ought to be our sacred charge: to carry on the work that President Johnson and others began, without pause, until hunger, homelessness, and economic insecurity, in any form, no longer endanger the promise of our Nation. I thank the gentlelady for her leadership and for yielding.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, arguably, Mr. Speaker, this Congress is the least productive one in which I have served over the last 33 years. Both from a humanitarian standpoint and an economic one, this Congress has earned the disdain of the American people irrespective of their party affiliation. I rise, Mr. Speaker, specifically to express my and the Democratic minority's strong objection to adjourning this first session of the 113th Congress without extending unemployment insurance eligibility for the 1.3 million Americans, including 20,000 military veterans, who will lose that support in just 48 hours. This number will increase by 73,000 people, on average, every week that we continue to block an extension. That is both a moral outrage and another congressionally inflicted blow to our economy, and it is unprecedented. Whenever unemployment levels have been as they are today, the Congress has extended benefits. It is, sadly, consistent with our failure to pass meaningful jobs legislation proposed by the President. It is, sadly, consistent with our failure to pass comprehensive immigration reform, which is broadly supported by business, labor, farmers, farm workers, and an overwhelming number of religious leaders and members of the faith community. It is, sadly, consistent with our failure to pass a farm bill, which could give confidence to those in dire need of help putting food on their families' tables that this Congress will not abandon them; and ironically, Mr. Speaker, we do so at the very time that our Nation celebrates a message of giving and hope. All this we leave undone after passing a so-called budget ``compromise,'' whose only virtue was that it was slightly better than the draconian and the irrational sequester--condemned on both sides of the aisle as unworkable, unrealistic, and ill-conceived. So, it is a so-called ``compromise'' that will be tested in just a few short weeks and which failed to assure that America will pay its bills in the months ahead. Mr. Speaker, if I thought objecting to this motion to adjourn by unanimous consent would lead to an extension of unemployment for the 1.3 million Americans who have been unable to find work or to a House leadership bringing to the floor issues that I have listed, I would object to this House adjourning with so much of the people's work undone, but sadly, Mr. Speaker, such an objection would have no such effect. I and my party deeply regret that reality. Mr. Speaker, we will return in January of 2014, urging our Republican colleagues to address the needs of so many millions of Americans who want us to do the work they sent us here to do. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, sadly, I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. First of all, let me say that America is advantaged by having two people who work on the Budget Committee who have great intellect, great integrity, and care about America: Mr. Ryan from Wisconsin and Mr. Van Hollen from Maryland. The American public sometimes is not sure that it has that kind of quality. If only they were here sitting in the Budget Committee or on the floor and listening to these two gentlemen who have disagreements and represent their positions well. Mr. Speaker, I voted for every budget compromise that has been passed over the past 3 years without fail. The result, however, invariably, has been an unremitting undermining of our efforts to reach a balanced fiscal policy and to invest in that which will secure our future: the economy, education, infrastructure, national security, and innovation. While each of those bills was preferable to default on our debt or the shutting down of our government, they have been simply stopgap measures that have not prevented continuing lurches from congressionally created and all too frequent fiscal crises and shutdowns. The headlines regarding this agreement put it in perspective. An op- ed in The New York Times says, ``Congress Avoids Reality, Again.'' The Wall Street Journal says, ``A Least Bad Budget Deal,'' while a USA Today headline says, ``Minimalist Budget Deal Beats Another Shutdown.'' The editorial concludes with this, however: Unless we come to grips with the fiscal issue, we will be inflicting a huge financial burden on our children. I agree. The deal before us today does not deal with the fundamental issue of long-term fiscal stability. My friend Mr. Ryan says he wants to do that. My friend Mr. Van Hollen says he wants to do that. I think Senator Murray wants to do that. We have not done that. We have not dealt with the underlying issues that prevent us from being on a fiscally sustainable path. It does not replace the full sequester, which Chairman Hal Rogers, who I know has spoken in favor of this agreement, has correctly described as ill-advised and unrealistic. I said on this floor when we considered the gentleman's budget that, if there were no Democrats in the House of Representatives, they could not implement that budget. I believe that. I believe that. I believe it because the figures were not related to priorities or vision or that which we needed to accomplish as a country, but on a number, 967. That is an opinion shared by all of the Republican appropriations subcommittee chairmen who wrote a letter to that effect. Nor, critically, does this agreement deal with the issue of the debt limit, which will confront us shortly, and which has, historically, over the last 3 years, been an inflection point to further reduce not only discretionary spending on both sides, mainly on the nondefense side, but also to reach, once again, into the pockets of Federal employees. Now, I am someone who represents 62,000 Federal employees, and I recommended zero COLAs the first 2 years we did zero COLAs. Why? The economy was in trouble and it was necessary for Federal employees, like everybody else, to participate.

Mr. HOYER. I'd better be quick. If we fail to resolve this issue now, it will simply plunge us into another manufactured crisis which will quickly undermine the stability and confidence that some believe this agreement is bringing. The fact that this agreement deals temporarily with preventing a cut in Medicare's physician reimbursement rate is welcome but, as with our fiscal sustainability, it needs to be dealt with on a permanent basis. I am pleased that the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee today marked up legislation to do so. However, it is unconscionable that the budget deal before us today does not extend unemployment insurance, which helps those who are most at risk in our society; and if we do not help them, the economy will suffer, and 200,000 jobs are predicted to be lost. On December 28, 1.3 million Americans will lose their unemployment insurance if we do not act, and they will be joined by an additional 3.5 million Americans in 2014. The House should not leave town without ensuring that individuals looking for work have the safety net of unemployment insurance.

Mr. HOYER. Finally, Mr. Speaker, this budget turns once again to middle class workers. Let me close with this. This agreement is better than the alternative, but it misses a huge opportunity to do what the American people expect us to do, and that is put this country on a fiscally sustainable path. I would urge my friend from Wisconsin, and I have urged my friend from Maryland, my colleague, summon up the courage, much of which you have already shown, to help us put this country on a fiscally sustainable path, and, yes, make tough decisions. And I will join with the gentleman from Wisconsin and the gentleman from Maryland in helping us to get the votes for those tough decisions that are necessary, but it needs to be a balanced deal. I have voted for every budget compromise that has been passed over the past three years. The results, invariably, have been an unremitting undermining of our efforts to reach a balanced fiscal policy and to invest in that which will secure our future: the economy, education, infrastructure, national security, and innovation. And while each of those bills was preferable to default on our debt or the shutting down of our government, they have been simply stop-gap measures that have not prevented continuing lurches from congressionally-created and all-too-frequent fiscal crises and shutdowns. The headlines regarding this deal put it in perspective: An op-ed in the New York Times says, ``Congress avoids reality again.'' The Wall Street Journal calls it the ``Least Bad Budget Deal.'' And while a USA Today headline says, ``Minimalist Budget Deal Beats Another Shutdown,'' the editorial concludes with this: ``Unless we come to grips with the fiscal issue, we will be inflicting a huge financial burden on our children.'' I could not agree more. The deal before us today does not deal with the fundamental issue of long-term fiscal stability, nor does it replace the full sequester-- which Chairman Hal Rogers has correctly described as ``ill-advised'' and ``unrealistic''--an opinion shared by all of the Republican Appropriations Subcommittee chairmen. Nor, critically, does this agreement deal with the issue of the debt limit, which will confront us in a few short months. If we fail to resolve that now, it will simply plunge us into another manufactured crisis, which will quickly undermine the stability and confidence some believe this agreement will bring. The fact that this agreement deals temporarily with preventing a cut in Medicare's physician reimbursement rates, SGR, is welcome, but, as with our fiscal sustainability, it needs to be dealt with on a permanent basis. I'm pleased that the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee today marked up legislation to address this issue in a permanent way. However, it is unconscionable that the budget deal before us today does not extend unemployment insurance, which helps those most at risk in our society. On December 28, 1.3 million Americans will lose their unemployment insurance if we do not act, and they will be joined by an additional 3.5 million Americans in 2014. The house should not leave town without ensuring that individuals looking for work have the safety net of unemployment insurance. Finally, I am disappointed that this budget deal turns once again to middle class workers. Our nation's Federal Employees have already contributed $114 billion toward deficit reduction, and are being asked to contribute once again. Their contribution is less than what was being discussed last week, which is positive, but to continue targeting them is unacceptable outside of a big deal where everyone else is asked to contribute as well. This budget deal is a missed opportunity. It is a missed opportunity to replace the sequester in its entirety. It is a missed opportunity to, at long last, put our Nation on a fiscally sustainable path. That is why I will oppose this deal on the floor today, and continue advocating for the big, balanced budget deal we need to truly restore the long-term fiscal stability of our Nation.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman who preceded me said he is a freshman. I have been here for 33 years. For 23 of those years I served on the Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee. I served under some extraordinary Republicans and some extraordinary Democrats who chaired that committee. The ones I served under made sure that the NIH got the resources it needed to investigate, research, and try to come up with the cures that will ameliorate the afflictions of mankind from a health perspective. Of the sponsors of this bill, 134 of them voted for the Ryan budget. The Ryan budget--had it been adopted, had it been implemented--would have cut the National Institutes of Health by $6 billion. The budget that we are going to consider will still require reductions in NIH funding by perhaps as much as 80 times to 100 times the money that is theoretically in this bill. By the way, there is no money in this bill. This is an authorization. As I am sure Ms. DeLauro, who is the ranking member, has pointed out it provides no money. Many of you, perhaps, are going to vote for a budget that will cut NIH; but you are going to pass a bill, and that is what Mr. Collins apparently is concerned about, because we are saying that this is a facade, a pretense of support. Paper will not help pediatric research. Money will, investment will.

Mr. HOYER. To that extent, this is not real. It is a message. Everybody on this floor, I presume, is for children's health, is for pediatric research, is for trying to make sure that our children are healthy and saved from disease and affliction. I presume all of us are for it, but talk is cheap. The Ryan budget would have cut $800 million from pediatric research alone; 134 of the sponsors of this bill voted for the Ryan budget. In other words, on one hand you are given--theoretically, if there was money available to do this--$11 million for pediatric research with this hand--that is 113 over 10--and $800 million being taken away with this hand. Who do you think you are fooling?

Mr. HOYER. So let's not fool the public that we are doing something for pediatric research. I know my friend, Mr. Upton, has been a supporter of NIH in years past. And he is my dear friend and a good Member, but I tell my friend, this bill does not do anything for pediatric research. You will have an opportunity to vote for pediatric research; vote to get rid of the sequester. Vote to invest in the National Institutes of Health, not to cut it. That will make a difference for pediatric research. I urge the defeat of this bill.

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. HOYER. You have got to have money.

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

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the long and influential career of Ms. Cynthia Leighton. For twenty years, I have had the distinct honor of serving as co- chair of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus. During this time I have met so many dedicated men and women from outside the traditional ranks of the fire service who are passionate about the health and safety of our Nation's firefighters and first responders. Cynthia Leighton is among those individuals, and truly strives to assist and protect those who keep our communities safe and secure. As a fire service liaison from Motorola and Motorola Solutions for the past twenty-eight years, Cynthia has been the company's go-to person on issues facing first responders, always willing and able to hear concerns, answer questions, and provide assistance--whether the inquiry comes from a local firefighter or a national fire organization, such as the Congressional Fire Services Institute or the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation. Each year at both the annual National Fire and Emergency Services Dinner and the National Fallen Firefighters Memorial Service, she is often behind the scenes making sure that the event organizers have the proper resources they needed for a successful program. Going above and beyond her job description at Motorola, Cynthia has demonstrated an enormous capacity for helping others and doing whatever she can to support the work of our first responders. On behalf of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus, I thank Cynthia for her dedication and outstanding contributions to the safety of our Nation's firefighters. I wish her the best in all her future endeavors.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Virginia, the majority leader, for the purpose of inquiring of the schedule for the week to come.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his information, and I appreciate the fact that he has put on there the sustainable growth rate in Medicare budget agreement, which hopefully we can get to, which will be bipartisan in nature and will be balanced and fair as well. In addition, legislation pertaining to the farm program's farm bill is necessary. It has been in conference for some period of time. Hopefully, we can pass that as well. I do note, however, with some degree of--actually, I said ``some degree''--with very great disappointment that unemployment insurance extension is not listed by the leader. As the leader knows, 1.3 million people are going to have their unemployment benefits expire, I believe, on December 28. Those people will have no support structure. Very frankly, my own view is they will then go on some other support structure, some sort of welfare payment--SNAP payment, Medicaid--which they may be on already. But, in any event, it will not be at no cost. CBO estimates that it will cost as much as 300,000 jobs if we do not extend unemployment insurance. We just had a hearing, Mr. Leader, where we had very, very compelling testimony from three people, with respect to--one of whom just found a job on Monday; she was very pleased at that--not only the economic damage that going off unemployment will cost them--and they have been looking for jobs--but also the psychological devastation to them and their families that that would cause. Does the gentleman have any belief--I understand, and I read somewhere, the gentleman may want to comment on it. Some commented that there was no appetite for extending unemployment insurance on your side of the aisle--but can the gentleman give me any idea of the possibilities for having unemployment insurance extension on the floor so that we cannot see those 1.3 million people dropped off the rolls as of December 28? I yield to my friend.