On the recordDecember 12, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. I think this agreement is an acknowledgement--at least a majority on both sides, certainly on the Democratic side, a strong majority--that the sequester is a dumb and unproductive way to cut spending or to reduce the deficit. What this agreement does is prevent that full sequester from taking place over the next 2 years. We believe that we should address and substitute the remaining sequester through a balanced approach of additional targeted cuts. But, Mr. Speaker, we also think we should close some of these special interest tax loopholes that benefit nobody except certain narrow interests that sometimes have undue sway here in the Congress. But as my colleague said, we have different approaches, and our Republican colleagues have refused to close a single one of those special tax breaks or preferences for the purpose either of reducing the sequester or reducing the deficit. So we have different approaches. We wouldn't have chosen the offsets that are in here to pay for the sequester replacement. They are the result of a negotiation. As I said earlier, I believe on balance this is an important step forward. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), one of the people who was very important in this process, my good friend and colleague from New York, the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee and one of the conferees.





