Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. What we should be talking about on this floor is jobs-- jobs, jobs, jobs. That is how we get this economy going again. That is how we reduce our deficit. That is how we reduce our debt. Instead, you're punishing American workers. This is shameful. We should be spending our time doing something that will actually benefit this economy and this economic recovery. This is not it. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this closed rule and to vote ``no'' on the underlying bill, and I urge the leadership to get serious about avoiding sequestration. It is not good for our country.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the gentleman from Georgia how many more speakers he has.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, again, I would urge my colleagues to reject this rule which, again, is illustrative of how closed this process has become in this House. We ought to reject the rule because it is not open. The Budget Committee never even considered this bill. But we ought to also reject the underlying bill because this is nonsense at a time when we should be doing something real to avoid a real catastrophe in this country, to avoid something that will have an adverse impact on our economy. Instead, you know, we're all fiddling while Rome is burning. This is outrageous. We can do so much better. We ought to work. You know, you're passing resolutions asking the President to do X, Y, and Z. We ought to pass a resolution to instruct us to do our job, and that's what we ought to do. That's what the American people expect. So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. I'm prepared to close as well, Mr. Speaker. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, this is a very frustrating debate, in large part because it's much ado about nothing. What we're doing here today is a press release. It's doing nothing at all to avoid this prospect of sequestration in which arbitrary cuts will go into play. This is just more talk and talk and talk and talk. Again, that's one of the reasons why the American people are so frustrated with this place. They want less talk and more work. We should be working. We should be coming to some sort of agreement to avoid the catastrophe of sequestration; but, instead, we're doing this. Mr. Speaker, I want to put some things in perspective. The Center for American Progress reported that since the start of fiscal year 2011, President Obama has signed into law approximately $2.4 trillion of deficit reduction for the years 2013 through 2022. Nearly three- quarters of that deficit reduction is in the form of spending cuts, while the remaining one-quarter comes from revenue increases. Congress and the President have cut about $1.5 trillion in programmatic spending, raised about $630 billion in new revenue, and generated about $300 billion in interest savings, for a combined total of more than $2.4 trillion in deficit reduction. That's a quote from the Center for American Progress. So three-fourths of the deficit reduction we've achieved so far was from spending cuts. But my friends on the other side have the nerve to continue to claim that Democrats are ``loathe'' to agree to spending cuts. I mean, give me a break, Mr. Speaker. Give me a break. The CBO projects the Federal deficit to be about $845 billion, which I think is very high; but it's the first time the nonpartisan office forecast a deficit below $1 trillion. So we are going in the right direction, and the President wants to continue to move in that right direction in a fair and balanced way. Now, here's the deal. My friends keep on referring to what they did last year which, again, was last year. We have to get them to think about this year because they have to act now; it's a new Congress. But last year the proposals they came up with to try to bring our budget into balance were all about lowering the quality of life for our citizens. Their budget proposal ended Medicare as we know it. Ended Medicare. It's gone. My friend from Florida talked about Social Security. Their plan for Social Security is to privatize it. And deep reductions and cuts that provide support for people who are most vulnerable. That's their plan. And now, we see, because we're not trying to address this latest fiscal cliff, I think they really do want the sequestration to go into effect. I think that is outrageous. I think it's going to be dangerous to our economy. But their plan, by allowing sequestration to go into effect, is basically to try to balance the budget by making more people unemployed. You know, we will lose jobs. In the defense sector that's already happening. But then we're going to see losses in jobs in other areas. There'll be cuts in education. Police grants are cut. Payments to Medicare providers are cut. And The New York Times reports that even the aid just approved for victims of Hurricane Sandy will fall under the sequester's axe. I mean, this is how we're going to solve our budgetary problems? Yes, we do have a big debt. A lot of it has to do with these unpaid- for wars, with these tax cuts that weren't paid for; and it's going to take us a while to get out of it. But as we get out of it, we can't destroy our country. We need a balanced approach. We need to cut where we can cut, we need to raise revenues where we need to raise revenues, but we also need to invest. Cutting the National Institutes of Health, which will happen if sequestration goes into effect, will not only cost jobs, but it will prolong human suffering. If we could find a cure to Parkinson's disease or Alzheimer's disease, not only will we prevent a lot of human suffering, you would end up solving the budgetary challenges of Medicare and Medicaid. There's a value in investing in these things, not arbitrarily cutting them. Now, last night in the Rules Committee, we tried to bring some substance to this debate. Mr. Van Hollen had his amendment, which was blocked. The one substantive thing that we could have done here today to avoid sequestration was blocked. So, Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to ensure that the House votes on Mr. Van Hollen's replacement for the sequester which was, again, blocked last night in the Rules Committee. I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch).

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlelady 10 seconds.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just respond to the gentleman from Texas by saying he's wrong. He's on the Energy and Commerce Committee. The Affordable Care Act had hearings in the Energy and Commerce Committee--and markups. There were multiple hearings on that bill. I'm not sure what he's talking about. Then to the gentleman from Georgia who says that he didn't mention the fact that the President missed the deadline, I thought he did, but the bill that he's touting here mentions it in these very political, inspired findings. Read your own bill. It's three pages long. I know that may be too much, but we're all told to read the bill. Look, rather than being here and telling the President what to do-- he's going to submit a budget--we've got to do our job. Our job is to avoid this sequestration because, if we don't, there are millions of people in this country who will be without work. There are programs that will be arbitrarily cut, and this economy will be hurt. Now, if you want sequestration, then you can continue to take your recesses and do this kind of trivial stuff on the House floor, but we ought to be finding a way to avoid going over this sequestration cliff. At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this bill does nothing. It does absolutely nothing. It's a press release. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to ensure that the House votes on Mr. Van Hollen's replacement for the sequester, which was blocked yesterday in the Rules Committee. My friend from Georgia talks about this being a good rule and a good process. This bill was not even considered by the Budget Committee, which is the committee of jurisdiction. It had no hearing. It had no markup. It mysteriously appeared at the Rules Committee. We wanted an open rule, and we were denied an open rule. Mr. Van Hollen actually had a substantive amendment to replace the sequester. That was denied. So I want to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Van Hollen, to discuss his amendment.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. We all want to make sure that our children are protected, but embracing a sequester that cuts things like Head Start, that's no way to protect our children. At this point, I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

Mr. McGOVERN. This is the 113th Congress. We haven't done one thing to solve this fiscal crisis that's looming on March 1st. This is the 113th. Under the Constitution, when a new Congress begins, we have to start all over again. Okay?

Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The issue is not whether the President should submit a budget. He should. And he would have submitted a budget by now, but because of the theatrics that my friends on the other side put us through dealing with the fiscal cliff, which was just solved on January 1, things are a little bit delayed. The issue is why is the House wasting time on this while the sword of the sequester hangs over the American people? The President can submit any budget he wants. That's what the President has the right to do, just like George Bush submitted whatever budget he wanted to do. We have a job here in this House, and that is to address this looming fiscal crisis called the sequester. What we're doing here today is doing nothing at all to move that ball forward. In less than a month, arbitrary cuts are going to go into effect, people are going to lose their jobs, and this economy is going to go into a deeper slump. For the life of me, I can't understand why there's not more urgency. We shouldn't be taking vacations. We actually should be working here and trying to resolve this. This is stupid legislation because it is not addressing the crisis. It is doing nothing to advance the cause of trying to get to a solution. This is just a press release. This is yet another gimmick. I think the reason why Congress and especially the House of Representatives is held in such low regard is because we spend so much time on trivial matters debating passionately, and we skip over debating the important things. We ought to be doing something important here today. We ought to be trying to avert this sequestration. We ought to be trying to keep people in their jobs. And we ought to be trying to create an economy that will create more jobs, not this theater. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Ms. Slaughter).

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlelady an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to submit for the Record a letter sent to the Honorable Paul Ryan, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, from the Executive Office of the President in the Office of Management and Budget which explains why the President's budget for this year is delayed--because of the theatrics that my friends on the other side forced us to go through to avoid going over a fiscal cliff. So I think it's understandable why the budget may be a little late. And I would say to the gentleman, submitting a budget is not controversial. What is controversial to me is the fact that so many of my friends on the other side want to go over this sequester cliff in which millions of jobs will be lost. That to me is controversial. We should be about protecting jobs and creating jobs. My friends have budgetary plans that would throw people out of work, and I find that unconscionable. I find that unconscionable. We should be about lifting this country up, not trying to put people down. And the plans that have been proposed by my friends on the other side, including this kind of giddiness about the prospect of going over the sequestration cliff, would cost millions of people in this country jobs. It would hurt our economy. That's not the way we want to govern. That's what is controversial on our side. We don't want people to lose their jobs. We want people to keep their jobs, and we want to create an economy that creates more jobs. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC, January 11, 2013. Hon. Paul Ryan, Chairman, Committee on the Budget, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Ryan: Thank you for your letter dated January 9, 2013, requesting information on when the Administration will submit the President's fiscal year (FY) 2014 Budget. For over a year and a half, the Administration has been working with Congress to forge agreement on a plan that would both grow our economy and significantly reduce the deficit. The Administration continues to seek a balanced approach to further deficit reduction that cuts spending in a responsible way while also raising revenues. As you know, the protracted ``fiscal cliff' negotiations that led to enactment of H.R. 8, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, created considerable uncertainty about revenue and spending for 2013 and beyond. The Act resolved a significant portion of this uncertainty by making permanent the temporary rates on taxable income at or below $400,000 for individual filers and $450,000 for married individuals filing jointly; permanently indexing the Alternative Minimum Tax exemption to the Consumer Price Index; extending emergency unemployment benefits and Federal finding for extended benefits for unemployed workers for one year; continuing current Medicare payment rates for physicians' services through December 31, 2013; extending farm bill policies and programs through September 30, 2013; and providing a postponement of the Budget Control Act's sequestration for two months. However, because these issues were not resolved until the American Taxpayer Relief Act was enacted on January 2, 2013, the Administration was forced to delay some of its FY 2014 Budget preparations, which in turn will delay the Budget's submission to Congress. The Administration is working diligently on our budget request. We will submit it to Congress as soon as possible. Sincerely, Jeffrey D. Zients, Deputy Director for Management. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York, the ranking member of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this restrictive rule and to vote ``no'' on the underlying bill. The process here is awful. The bill before us was not even considered by the Budget Committee. They didn't hold a single hearing, no markup, and on a party-line vote last night the Rules Committee denied Mr. Van Hollen, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, the opportunity to offer a meaningful substitute. The Rules Committee also, on a party line, voted against an open rule. To all of the Republican freshmen and sophomores who campaigned on the need for openness and transparency, by voting for this rule, you are officially part of the problem. This bill before us isn't a meaningful attempt to address the budget; it's a gimmick wrapped in talking points inside a press release. Two weeks ago, this House passed the so-called ``No Budget, No Pay Act,'' then they went on another recess. There wasn't a holiday, mind you. I guess it was the Super Bowl recess. Now they're back with today's bill. It calls on the President to tell Congress when his budget will come into balance. If his budget doesn't say when it will come into balance, then he must submit a supplemental statement telling Congress when it will come into balance. Why are we doing this? Because the President is late submitting his budget for the next fiscal year. Okay, fine. The President should submit a budget on time, and I support that. But lost in all of this Republican budget Kabuki theater is the truth: the reason the administration is late with their budget is because they just spent months trying to avert the disaster that was the fiscal cliff. As the Speaker was trying in vain to corral House Republicans into doing the right thing, we had Plan B and Plan C and Plan--who knows what. Finally, we reached a deal on January 1, technically after we went over the cliff. In the meantime, back in the real world, we are less than 24 calendar days away from the disastrous sequester taking effect--less than 24 calendar days from massive, arbitrary, and devastating cuts to defense and nondefense discretionary programs, cuts to jobs programs and medical research and education, cuts to military personnel and law enforcement, cuts that will cost jobs and do real harm to the American economy as it struggles to recover. And the reality is that we don't even have that much time. We only have 9 legislative days left in February to address the issue, 9 days to negotiate a trillion-dollar deal with the Senate and the President. And instead of a meaningful plan to address the crisis that we need to avert, we have this nonsense before us today. This is no way to govern. The disturbing truth is that many Republicans seem downright giddy when it comes to the sequester cuts. There is news story after news story about how the Republicans are going to allow the sequester to take effect. In the Rules Committee last night, the author of this bill, the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Price, couldn't support these cuts fast enough. I was shocked. Mr. Speaker, it was only last week that the economic numbers for the fourth quarter of 2012 were released. Unexpectedly, we saw a contraction in those numbers, a contraction fueled by a massive reduction in defense spending. What do you know: huge cuts in government spending during a fragile economic recovery damage economic growth. The Republican response is to double down on this stupid. These Republican games of Russian roulette with the American economy must come to an end. It is time to replace short-term partisan political interests with the greater good. The President today is asking us to consider a thoughtful, balanced plan to stop the sequester. I urge the Republican leadership to bring that plan to the floor of the House for a vote as soon as possible. That's what the American people want and that's what they deserve: a real plan. The bill before us today isn't it, and I urge my colleagues to reject it. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia, my good friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the problem of hunger in America. We are the richest, most prosperous Nation in the world. Yet the sad fact is that in 2013 more than 50 million people in this country are considered food insecure by the United States Department of Agriculture. Food insecurity, Mr. Speaker, is a technical term for the hungry. That's right, there are more than 50 million hungry people in this country. We cannot and we should not stand for this. It is time that we end hunger now. Certainly, our fragile economy has a lot to do with the high levels of hunger. Millions of people either lost their jobs or saw their wages fall. Food and energy prices went up. For many middle- and low-income families, everyday costs like rent, utilities, and food became more difficult. And in many cases, families were forced to choose between things like food and electricity. But even before the recession started, tens of millions of Americans went hungry at some point during the year. That, too, is unconscionable. And when we turn this economy around, and our economy will rebound, we need to make sure that people do not fall through the cracks again. We need to end hunger now. We may not be able to wipe out all disease. We probably can't eliminate all war. But we can end hunger now if we make the commitment to do so. We have the resources. We know what it takes. We just have to muster the will to end hunger once and for all. Hunger is a political condition. It's important to point out that even though over 50 million people were food insecure, the vast majority had a safety net that prevented them from actually starving. That safety net is called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. Formerly known as food stamps, SNAP is a program that provides low-income families with food that they otherwise could not afford to buy. Last year, over 47 million families relied on SNAP to feed their families. SNAP is literally a lifeline for these 47 million people who struggle to make ends meet. Now, I don't deny that this is a big number, but it's a big number because it's a big problem. Mr. Speaker, America's hunger problem would be dramatically worse without SNAP. Just imagine what this country would look like if we didn't have the safety net that SNAP provides for low-income families in this country. Our churches, our synagogues and mosques do their best to help feed families who need help, but they cannot do it on their own. There are nonprofits and food banks that do as much as they can, but they cannot do it on their own. The private sector simply cannot meet the need. And with the economy not expected to fully recover for some time, we know that there will continue to be those who struggle to afford food. These are the people we need to worry about, the people we must help, the people who need their neighbors to lend a helping hand. SNAP, Mr. Speaker, is a helping hand. Relying on SNAP is no walk in the park. It is not champagne and caviar. No, Mr. Speaker, the truth is that the average SNAP benefit is less than $1.50 per meal. That doesn't buy a whole lot of healthy, nutritious food. And there's a common misconception--some would say it's a purposeful mischaracterization--that SNAP promotes a culture of dependency. Some detractors even talk about SNAP like it's a golden ticket, that getting on SNAP is like winning the lottery; everything's taken care of forever. Give me a break. People don't want a handout. They don't want to rely on government assistance. No, Mr. Speaker, people want to provide for themselves and their families. That's why half of all new SNAP participants receive benefits for 10 months or less, and 74 percent actually left the program entirely within 2 years. Now, I don't know why there is such a vitriolic opposition to this important program by some here in Congress, nor do I understand why some of my colleagues believe we should balance the budget by cutting programs that help the most vulnerable. The truth is that without SNAP people would go hungry because they are poor. Eighty-three percent of families on SNAP make less than $24,000 a year for a family of four. Less than $24,000 a year. I challenge anyone in this body to live off that income for a year. Our budgetary challenges are clear. We need to tackle the debt and the deficit, but we need to do so smartly and with reason. There is a reason not a single bipartisan deficit proposal, from Simpson-Bowles to sequester, cuts SNAP. That's because SNAP is the most effective and efficient anti-hunger program we have. That's because cutting SNAP will literally take the food away from families in this country. That's because the authors of these plans, from liberal Democrats to conservative Republicans, all recognize the importance of this program. Yet there are those who would want to undermine this and other programs that provide a circle of protection for those in need. It is time for a nationwide effort to end the scourge of hunger. I call on the President of the United States to coordinate a White House conference on food and nutrition so we can devise a plan. I call on the leaders of Congress to support such an initiative. We need to do more. End hunger now. End hunger now. End hunger now. Mr. Speaker, we can do this. We must do this.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me say to my colleagues, both Democratic and Republican colleagues, that they ought to vote against this rule. The bill before us today was not the product of deliberation in either the Ways and Means Committee or the House Administration Committee. There were no hearings. It was brought before the Rules Committee last night, and not a single amendment was made in order. This is a closed rule. So if my friend from Texas wants to usher in a new policy of openness in this Congress, we should have had this rule open so that Members could have an opportunity to express themselves and to have their viewpoints made known. But, again, it is a completely closed rule. So this rule should be defeated. It should go back to the Rules Committee. We ought to come back with something that allows this Chamber to be able to do its deliberation. And Mr. Speaker, we ought to be here today to raise the debt ceiling, not because we like the idea of raising the debt ceiling, but because that's the right thing to do. It is the right thing to do for our country and for our economy. It is the right thing to do for the businesses of this country, so that they have some certainty that we will not default on our debts. And if they had that certainty, they would then invest in our economy and help create more jobs and help create more opportunity for people. You know, one of the things I have heard from Republicans and Democrats who I've bumped into at all types of occasions, they may have differences on our tax policy, they may have differences on our economic policy, but the one thing that everybody seems to agree on is that Congress ought to provide certainty. And this is anything but certainty, because what we are doing today, thanks to the Republican leadership, is to bring a short-term extension of the debt ceiling to the floor, which means that they have decided, once again, to play partisan politics with the debt ceiling. This is a bad idea. This is not the way a mature governing body ought to behave. We ought to do our job. Next month the United States will hit the debt ceiling and, without action, the United States will default on its debts. Now, the last time the Republican leadership played this dangerous game of economic Russian roulette, they threatened the full faith and credit of the United States for the first time in our history. For some reason they seem hell-bent on doing it again. We need to be clear about one thing. The debt limit is not about new spending, it's not about increasing the deficit. The debt limit is simply the way Congress pays for things that we have already bought, things like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, by the way, that my friends on the other side continue to insist that we don't pay for; it just goes on a credit card. Things like the Medicare prescription drug benefit that was not paid forward that my friends on the other side of the aisle championed, things that the Republicans have voted for over and over and over again. Now, we can and we should have an open and thoughtful debate about our spending priorities and our deficit. That is what we're supposed to do. But playing games with the debt limit, threatening to default, should not be an option. But that's just what the bill before us does. It, once again, kicks the can down the road. Now, instead of passing a clean, long-term debt ceiling bill, one that could ensure that America doesn't default on its debt and obligations, the Republicans have chosen to bring a bill up that would put us right back in the same place that we're in now in May, 3 months from now. So what's next, Mr. Speaker? A 3-week extension of the debt ceiling? Three days? Three hours? My Republican friends go on and on about how the business community needs and deserves certainty from Washington, but treating the full faith and credit of the United States like just another political talking point is no way to create certainty. How ironic, Mr. Speaker, that the Republican Party, the party that took a record surplus and turned it into a record deficit, the party that put two major wars on the Nation's credit card, the party that refused to pay for two rounds of tax cuts and a massive, expansive prescription drug benefit, now wants to pay its bills. Now wants to pay its bills. The same group of people that got us into this mess are now telling us that they want to get us out of this mess. The fact is, on the issue of the deficit and on the issue of the debt, my friends on the other side of the aisle, I do not believe, have any credibility. You know, there's an old show business saying, Mr. Speaker: you got to have a gimmick. And my Republican friends never cease to disappoint me. They always have a gimmick. They believe in government by gimmicks. And this No Budget, No Pay bill is another gimmick. Let's kind of play this out. What their bill says is if the House doesn't pass a budget bill by April 15, we don't get paid. If the Senate doesn't pass a budget bill by April 15, they don't get paid. Now, I have no doubt that they have the votes to ram whatever they want through the House of Representatives, and I expect that they will bring us yet another budget bill that has the same extreme, excessive spending cuts in programs that benefit the middle class and poor that they brought before us last year. So I think they will bring a bill to the floor. And let's say the Senate does bring a budget bill to the floor and they pass it. This bill does not require that there be a conference report that is voted on by both the House and the Senate as a condition of whether or not Members get paid. So, again, this is not a solution. What this is just more political gamesmanship. You pass something in the House that may be totally irreconcilable, something that will never be able to be conferenced with the Senate. Senate, you pass whatever you want, it doesn't have to be conferenceable with the House, and there we are. And there we are, 3 months from now, in the same position that we are in now. You know, the way this should be done, and I know this is a radical idea, but the way this should be done is the leadership of the Republican side should speak with the leadership of the Democratic side, and let's see if we can kind of agree on a way to proceed. There ought to be serious discussions. I'll also point out for my colleagues and for those who are watching, there were a couple of occasions over the last year and a half where Speaker Boehner came very close to coming to agreement with the White House on a bigger deal. And on those two occasions the Speaker walked away and said no after he came very close to saying yes. Why did he say no? It had nothing to do with the Senate not having passed a budget resolution. It had everything to do with the fact that when the Speaker came back and talked to his Republican rank-and-file Members, they all said no. They said no. It doesn't cut Medicare enough. It doesn't cut Social Security enough. It doesn't cut food stamps enough. It doesn't cut education enough. It doesn't cut job creation enough. There are people on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, who are using this not as an opportunity to balance our budget, but they're using this as an opportunity to gut government, to end the public sector. They see this as their opportunity. And as a result, we have this uncertainty. And as a result, the American people pay the price. As a result, this economy is not recovering as quickly as it needs to be. I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule, this closed rule. This is not the way we should begin this session. Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, enough of the gimmicks. It's time to get serious about doing the people's business, and this is not doing the people's business. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas, the new chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. Sessions, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to tell the gentleman from Georgia that I appreciate his many, many, many, many years working here in Washington, not only as a Member of Congress, but his many years as a congressional aide. So you have a perspective here based on many, many years of service in Washington. But I would just say that if someone were to tell me that the Republican leadership were to bring yet another closed rule to the floor, I'm sad to say that I'd respond: I'm not surprised. This is a closed rule. This is a bill--whether it's five pages or a hundred pages, it doesn't make any difference--that did not come out of a committee process. The Ways and Means Committee didn't hold hearings or a markup. The House Administration Committee didn't hold hearings or a markup. This did, as my colleague from New York said, basically come out of your retreat, and you hand a bill to all of us here. What's even more startling is that you do not allow anybody, Democrats or Republicans, to amend it. Completely closed. Completely closed. Look, I would say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle-- especially the freshmen who campaigned on the platform of openness and transparency--you vote for this rule, you're the problem. You're the problem if you vote for this rule. So I would again urge my colleagues, just on the process alone, this is not the way that we should proceed. The other thing I would remind my friends who are saying that somehow this is going to produce a result, this doesn't require a result. This requires the House to once again pass its budget--which, as we all know from last year's experience, represents the extreme of the extreme; I mean, it's irreconcilable with the Senate--and the Senate can pass whatever they want, but it doesn't require a finished product. What the American people want is a finished product, not a gimmick to kick the can down the road for 3 months. Yeah, everybody is happy we're not going to default today. But 3 months, that's it? I mean, I think we can do a heck of a lot better than this. At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.