Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. At this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan, the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee who was denied his right to have a substitute when he was at the Rules Committee, Mr. Levin. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very proud to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California, the Democratic leader, Ms. Pelosi.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York, the ranking member of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this Republican leadership is starting to make me envious of the people of ancient Rome, because although Nero only fiddled while Rome burned, at least he did something. House Republicans, on the other hand, have brought yet another piece of legislation to this floor that will do absolutely nothing, not a thing, to address the number one issue facing our country--jobs. Millions of Americans, through no fault of their own, cannot find work. That means millions of families are struggling to pay their bills, keep their homes, and put enough food on the table. And instead of facing this problem head on, Republicans here in Washington are turning a blind eye to the needs of our neighbors. You would think that with all the recesses we take around here these days my Republican friends would hear from their constituents about the still struggling economy. I know that's what I hear about from the people of Massachusetts. There are two things that we can and must do before we break for yet another holiday recess: extend the payroll tax cut and extend unemployment insurance. By refusing to bring the payroll tax cut to the floor, the Republicans are risking tax relief for 160 million Americans while protecting massive tax cuts for 300,000 people making more than $1 million per year. Extending and expanding the payroll tax cut would put $1,500 into the pockets of the typical middle class family. Hundreds of thousands of jobs are at risk. Even Mitt Romney has come out in support of extending the payroll tax cut. If he can take a position, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the House Republicans could do the same. And every dollar invested in unemployment insurance yields a return of $1.52 in economic growth. Again, hundreds of thousands of jobs are at risk unless we act. So instead of those simple, effective measures to improve our economy and spur job creation, we have before us yet another waste of time. It is time to put the people of this country first. I urge my colleagues to reject this rule, and I urge them to vote against the underlying bill.

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I would like to insert in the Record the Statement of Administration Policy, which is opposed to this legislation. Statement of Administration Policy H.R. 3010--Regulatory Accountability Act of 2011 (Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, and 36 cosponsors, Nov. 29, 2011) The Administration is committed to ensuring that regulations are smart and effective, that they are tailored to advance statutory goals in the most cost-effective and efficient manner, and that they minimize uncertainty. Accordingly, the Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 3010, the Regulatory Accountability Act. The Regulatory Accountability Act would impose unprecedented procedural requirements on agencies that would prevent them from performing their statutory responsibilities. It would also create needless regulatory and legal uncertainty and increase costs for businesses, as well as state, tribal, and local governments, and further impede the implementation of commonsense protections for the American public. The Regulatory Accountability Act would impose unnecessary new procedures on agencies and invite frivolous litigation. When a Federal agency promulgates a regulation, it must already adhere to the requirements of the statute that it is implementing. In many cases, the Congress has mandated that the agency issue the particular rule or regulation, and it often prescribes the process the agency must follow. Agencies must also adhere to the robust and well understood procedural requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, and major rules are subject to the requirements of other Federal statutes such as the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, and the Paperwork Reduction Act. In addition, for decades, agency rulemaking has been governed by Executive Orders issued and followed by administrations of both political parties. These require regulatory agencies to promulgate regulations only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the regulations justify the costs, to consider regulatory alternatives, and to promote regulatory flexibility. Lastly, final regulations are subject to review by the Federal courts to ensure that agencies satisfy the substantive and procedural requirements of all applicable statutes and consider input from the relevant stakeholders. Passage of H.R. 3010 would replace this time-honored framework with layers of additional procedural requirements that would seriously undermine the ability of agencies to execute their statutory mandates. It would require cumbersome ``formal'' rulemaking for a new category of rules, for which agencies would have to conduct quasi-adjudicatory proceedings. It would impose unnecessary new evidentiary standards as a condition of rulemaking. It would subject the regulatory process to unneeded rounds of litigation. Finally, the Regulatory Accountability Act would undermine the Executive Branch's ability to adapt regulatory review to changing circumstances. In these ways and others, the Regulatory Accountability Act would impede the ability of agencies to provide the public with basic protections, and create needless confusion and delay that would prove disruptive for businesses, as well as for state, tribal and local governments. If the President were presented with the Regulatory Accountability Act, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill. Mr. Speaker, jobs, jobs, jobs. That's what we should be focusing on today--not guns, not abortion, not reaffirming our national motto-- jobs. We need to put people back to work. But that doesn't seem to be part of the Republican agenda, and it's hurting our country. At the end of this year, as you have already heard during this debate, the payroll tax cuts signed into law by President Obama will expire. Without action, middle class Americans will see their taxes go up by a thousand dollars next year. Without action, GDP growth will fall by half a percent and will cost the economy 400,000 jobs according to the economic forecasting group Macroeconomic Advisers. Extending this tax cut is not just good for American families, it's good for the American economy. According to Ameriprise Financial, extending the payroll tax cut could add more than 1 million jobs to the economy. Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of legislation that we need to be debating, not right-wing, hot-button social issues or bills that, when you add it all up, don't mean anything to anybody in this country. But where is this extension of the payroll tax? It's not in this rule? It's not in the majority leader's schedule. In fact, the Republicans seem to be ignoring this issue. It's sad. It's sad that the Republican leadership would rather raise taxes on middle class Americans basically to protect tax breaks of millionaires. If there was a vote right now on a bill that was going to cut one penny, it was going to cost Donald Trump one penny more in taxes, the other side would be overfilled with speakers. But we're talking about middle-income Americans, struggling Americans, that if we don't act by the end of this year they will see a $1,000 increase in their taxes. Now, we can change all that here today. We can change that here today and actually bring to the floor something that is meaningful. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to require that we vote on a payroll tax holiday extension for next year. If we don't pass an extension, all working Americans will get a little less in their paychecks beginning in January. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous materials prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want my colleagues to understand that one of the amendments they didn't make in order was the amendment offered by our colleague, Congressman Johnson, which basically stated that if the experts conclude that a rule would result in a net job creation, the rule shouldn't be delayed and blocked by all the stuff that's in this bill because we need jobs right now. It's interesting that that's the one that my Republican friends chose to block because it has to do with jobs. Another amendment that they blocked was one that I had offered. I've offered it many, many times in the Rules Committee, and that is to basically bring to the floor an amendment that would allow us to vote to strip big oil companies of taxpayer-funded giveaways--subsidies is what I call them. And I've tried to bring it up on the floor a gazillion different times in a gazillion different ways, and I'm always told that there's a germaneness issue. But yet what does the Rules Committee do? Oftentimes, it waives all the rules so that sometimes nongermane amendments can come to the floor. I mean, when you talk about balance, the fact that taxpayers are subsidizing big oil companies that made over $100 billion in profit last year, that we're going to somehow continue taxpayer subsidies to these big oil companies, yet, when you look at the Republican budget that they passed, they find ways to balance the budget on every single program that impacts middle-income and low-income people in this country. What they do is they choose to balance the budget by lowering the quality of life and the standard of living for everyday people and for those struggling to get in the middle. There's no balance here. There's no balance here. And in terms of bipartisanship, the President of the United States came to this Chamber and he gave a speech in which he outlined his jobs bill, which included a number of initiatives, all of which had in the past enjoyed bipartisan support. But I guess because he's the President, he's a Democrat, Republican leadership doesn't want to have those debates here on the floor, give him any victories, because that might not be politically advantageous to them. Let's be frank about what's going on here. In my opinion, this is about political opportunism. This is about the leadership of this House blocking important legislation to put people back to work just because they can, just because it's been proposed by the President of the United States. We need to focus on jobs in this Congress. We need to be focused on helping people get back to work. I don't care what part of the country you're from, people are hurting, people are struggling, and they're looking for us to do something, something meaningful, not to bring bills to the floor like this that, in the scheme of things, mean nothing or to have these great debates over reaffirming our national motto or on bills that make it easier for unsafe people to carry concealed weapons from State to State. That we're debating those things when there are millions of people that are out of work, I think, is outrageous. Madam Speaker, at this time I am proud to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. I rise in very strong opposition to this restrictive rule--and not only restrictive, but a very convoluted rule--and I rise in opposition to the three bills that would be made in order by this rule. Regulatory uncertainty is a canard invented by Republicans that allows them to use current economic problems to pursue an agenda supported by the Big Business community year in and year out. In other words, it is a simple case of political opportunism, not a serious effort to deal with high unemployment. Those aren't my words, Madam Speaker. Those are the words of Bruce Bartlett, a Republican who worked for Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Jack Kemp, and Ron Paul. Think about what Mr. Bartlett is saying in his last sentence: ``Republicans would rather play political games instead of putting people back to work. They would rather fiddle while Rome burns instead of putting out the fire.'' And look at the Republican track record since the start of the 112th Congress: no jobs bills, not one. But we've found time to debate bills defunding Planned Parenthood and National Public Radio. There's no extension of the payroll tax cut or unemployment insurance, but we can spend hours debating the need to allow unsafe people the right to carry concealed weapons from State to State. No effort to take away tax breaks for oil companies who continue to make billions of dollars in profits each month, but we can find time to make our air dirtier and our water less safe by dismantling the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. Seriously, Madam Speaker, the agenda of the far right continues to dominate this House leadership, and that agenda is out of touch with the needs of the American people. We have a jobs crisis in this country. The rich are getting richer and everyone else is struggling. Yet the Republicans continue to side with the people who don't need any help. They killed the supercommittee because they would rather protect tax cuts for millionaires instead of dealing with the deficit. They are refusing to take up the extension of the payroll tax cut that expires at the end of the year because they don't want their millionaire friends to pay just a little bit more. Just look at what we're doing this week. We're going to consider anti-regulatory bills that will make our country less safe and our citizens less healthy. We're going to consider a bill that actually promotes putting more corporate money into the political system. And we're going to debate a bill that makes it harder for workers to organize. Not one of these bills will put people back to work. Not one of these bills will help struggling families keep their heat on during the winter. Not one of these bills will help repair our aging infrastructure. To quote Mr. Bartlett again: ``People are increasingly concerned about unemployment, but Republicans have nothing to offer them.'' And that's the truth, Madam Speaker. Republicans have absolutely nothing to offer. The President proposed--and I have cosponsored--the American Jobs Act. It's a proposal that would help put Americans back to work, would extend the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance, would help repair our aging infrastructure, and would provide aid to cities and States so they don't have to lay off more teachers and more police officers and more firefighters. It's a bill that is paid for. It doesn't add one cent to the deficit. And it's made up of measures that Republicans and Democrats have supported in the past. Let me repeat that: what the President has proposed is a series of measures that Republicans and Democrats have supported in the past. The idea that a program was good under President Bush but not under President Obama doesn't make much sense to me, but that seems to be the thought process that passes for governing under this Republican leadership. So where's the Republican plan? They don't have one. It's not enough to cross our fingers and hope that our economy improves. It's not enough to close our eyes and wish that more people would find a job. Actions speak louder than words, and it is clear by the Republican leadership's actions that they don't care about the economy. Either that, or they are making a conscious decision not to act simply for political gain. Either way, Americans are hurting because of their inaction. Madam Speaker, our economy is not where it needs to be. There are still too many unemployed people in this country. There are still too many people struggling to make ends meet, struggling to pay their bills and to put food on the table. But this notion that red tape is what's keeping our economy from getting off the ground and that thoughtful regulations are preventing people from getting jobs is just untrue. We don't need to waste time debating bills that make our air and water dirtier and less safe. We don't need to waste our time with bills defunding NPR and Planned Parenthood. We don't need to waste our time debating bills to reaffirm our national motto. What we need to do is to get this economy moving. What we need to do is create jobs. Republicans have been in charge now for 330 days. That's 330 days without a jobs bill. It's not enough to call something a ``jobs'' bill if it doesn't put someone back to work. No, Madam Speaker, we need a real jobs bill. We need definitive action that shows the American people that we care about their well-being, that we understand what they're going through, and that we're here to help--in short, that we're on their side. The bills we will be considering this week just don't get the job done. It's been 330 days, and Republicans still don't get it. I can't say that I'm surprised. I'm disappointed, but I'm not surprised. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia, my 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. Speaker, again I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question so we can make sure that working families do not see their payroll taxes go up while we're still struggling to recover from a recession. This is exactly the type of action that people all over the country are hoping this Congress will move on. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to a member of the Judiciary Committee whose amendment was not made in order by the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want my colleagues to understand that, if we were to extend the payroll tax cut, according to Mark Zandi, who is a Republican economist who advised John McCain in his Presidential campaign, it would create 750,000 jobs. He also says that we're likely to go into a recession if the payroll tax cut expires, if my Republican friends don't allow us to have a vote up or down on it. I am going to ask people to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can have an up-or-down vote on this and so that people will have an opportunity to make their views on this issue known. The other thing is we've heard all this talk about what the cost of regulation is. Again, some of the numbers that have been touted here I question very seriously. OMB's calculations demonstrate that regulation has a positive net effect on the economy and not by a little. In 2008, the Bush administration's OMB estimated that regulatory costs for major rules were between $46 billion and $54 billion and that the benefits of those regulations were between $122 billion and $656 billion. So it goes back to the point I was making earlier, which is what we should be doing on this floor today--debating a bill to put people back to work. We should be extending the payroll tax cut. We should also be talking about initiatives that the President put forward, these bipartisan initiatives. We should be doing things that will make a real difference in people's lives. My friend talks about the American worker. There is no Congress, no Republican leadership in my lifetime that has been more hostile to the American worker than the leadership that runs this House right now, bringing bill after bill after bill to this floor to take away the rights of workers at every single level. Do you want to know what one of the problems is with jobs moving overseas? It's that some of the incentives in our tax laws have made it easier and even attractive for companies to pack up and go overseas and hire cheaper labor. One of the problems with these series of bills that we're dealing with here today is that it will result in a rush to the bottom in terms of regulation--the lowest common denominator in terms of clean water and clean air standards--because, among other things, this legislation says that we should take into consideration the standards in other countries. So China is going to now set our clean water and our clean air standards? Give me a break. Let's get real. Let's bring something to the floor that will make a difference in the lives of the American people, especially those who are unemployed. Let's bring a real jobs bill to the floor. Let's do something meaningful. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlelady an additional 1 minute.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My friend, the gentleman from Georgia, said that his party likes to pay for things. That statement startled me a little bit because they didn't think it was important to pay for the Bush tax cuts, mostly for the rich, which have now bankrupted us. They didn't think it was important to pay for the Medicare prescription drug bill, which was a lot more expensive than they had promised and was not paid for. They don't think about paying for the two wars that we're fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. We had balanced budgets when Bill Clinton left office. It was after that that everything got out of whack, and it was because of these tax cuts, which were mostly for the wealthy, and it was because of a prescription drug bill and two wars, all of which were not paid for. So I hope my friends on the other side have finally gotten religion on this issue in that it is important to try to pay for things as you go along and to embrace PAYGO as Democrats have done. With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Hahn).

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, my friends on the other side of the aisle claim to be about fiscal prudence; that they are here to get our fiscal house in order; that a balanced budget amendment is the only way to do so. Once again, Mr. Speaker, my friends on the other side of the aisle are wrong. The right way to balance the Nation's budget is by making good, solid, smart policy, something the Republicans have proven to be incapable of over the past decade. President Bush was handed a gift by President Bill Clinton. He was given a budget surplus. And instead of crafting a smart, long-term fiscal plan, he blew it in a couple of big spending sprees in the first few months of his term, with a lot of help from congressional Republicans. Let me be as clear as I can be. You don't squander a surplus on tax cuts for the rich, and you don't put two wars on your credit card. You certainly don't do those two things at the same time. But that's exactly what the Republicans did, and they drove this economy into a ditch with unpaid tax cuts and unpaid wars. And now they want to amend the Constitution with a balanced budget amendment. You've got to be kidding. What's worse, the Republican leadership has decided to break their transparency pledge. Not only are they thumbing their nose at their own rules, they are actually bringing a bill to the floor that has never been read, amended, or voted on in a committee. That's right, Mr. Speaker. Despite all of their rhetoric, this balanced budget amendment was never marked up in committee. And, even worse, it was changed without a vote before it came to the Rules Committee. Even though there has been no official consideration of this specific bill by the Judiciary Committee, something this new Republican Congress promised to do, the sponsor of this bill had the audacity to say that this bill and the changes made in the dark of night were supported by the committee. And if this process weren't bad enough, these changes actually allow war funds to be exempt from the balanced budget amendment. These wars have gone on too long, and they should be paid for. They should have been paid for from day one. That's a mistake we should learn from instead of repeating. We have already spent $1.3 trillion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's $1.3 trillion that's unpaid for, $1.3 trillion on our grandchildren's credit cards. Mr. Speaker, I oppose these wars. I want them to end now. But if you support them, the least you can do is pay for them. And yet the Republicans are repeating their same mistakes. And I shouldn't be surprised. This is the party that decries government spending, but turns to FEMA with outstretched hands in times of need. This is the party that says the Recovery Act doesn't work, but shows up at ribbon cuttings for projects paid for by the Recovery Act. And now this is the party that says we should balance the budget, but we shouldn't pay for the wars that increase our debt. Mr. Speaker, the fiscal hypocrisy takes my breath away. This is a bad bill being brought up under a bad process. Vote ``no'' on the rule and vote ``no'' on the bill.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank my ranking member for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, there are some good things in this minibus. I'm especially pleased with the funding levels for the SNAP and the WIC programs, which will ensure that hungry people have access to nutritious food during these tough economic times. And I regret very much that those programs were under attack by the Republican majority in this House, but in this minibus, those levels are adequate. And I'll likely support the final passage of this bill. But, Mr. Speaker, for the life of me, I can't understand why policy riders were allowed to be included in the final bill. Some were even airdropped in the dark of night without being considered by either the House or the Senate. Most troubling, the underlying bill includes a special carve-out for Maine and Vermont to allow 100,000-pound trucks on their interstate highways for the next 20 years. Mr. Speaker, current law allows only trucks up to 80,000 pounds to travel on interstates--and for good reason. Bigger, heavier trucks are an enormous safety threat. Oversized rigs are more likely to be involved in crashes, not to mention that it's unnerving to see one in your rearview mirror bearing down on you on the highway. And if the safety risks are not convincing enough as to why heavier trucks are a bad idea, consider the economic arguments. We're here talking about deficit reduction, and already bigger trucks don't pay their fair share for the damage they incur on our roads and our bridges. An 80,000-pound truck only pays 80 percent of its damage costs, and a 97,000-pound truck would pay only half of the damage it causes. Our Nation's infrastructure is crumbling, and the highway trust fund is woefully underfunded. Where are we going to get this money to repair our infrastructure? And the Maine and the Vermont exemptions will only make this problem worse. And it also starts us down a slippery slope of allowing other States to ask for special weight-limit exemptions. We'll end up with a patchwork of truck-size and truck-weight laws that will make the business of transporting goods by truck across State lines a confusing mess. Mr. Speaker, there were no hearings--none, zero--no hearings held in the House on the Maine and Vermont exemption. The House didn't even consider a Transportation Appropriations bill. So to be making such a major policy change without thoughtful consideration and vigorous debate is absurd. I would remind my colleagues that there's bipartisan opposition to increasing truck size and truck weight. I have a bill to freeze truck size and truck weight at 80,000 pounds across the entire national highway system, and it has 60 bipartisan cosponsors. The issue of increasing truck size and weight needs to be fully understood and debated before making any long-term policy changes. I strongly oppose the Maine and Vermont policy rider in this appropriations bill; and I regret very, very much that this was included without the appropriate hearings, without the appropriate oversight, and without doing it out in the open so people could understand what the policy implications are by making this exemption.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Then I will reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, a member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Johnson.