Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question and to defeat this closed rule. My friends on the other side of the aisle need to get serious about negotiating an end to this impasse, and need to stop the ideological riders that are attached to this bill. Let's get serious, and let's get this passed so we can begin to deal with next year's budget. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Well, here we go again--another closed rule, but this rule is different from others. It also includes martial law authority. This means that the Republican leadership can bring any spending bill to the floor at any time they want. So much for ``read the bill.'' This is not how the House Republicans said they were going to run the House. Open rules? Read the bill? Markups? Hearings? Their record, Mr. Speaker, is abysmal, and this bill is a perfect example of how they are doing things they said they wouldn't do--a closed rule with Martial law authority. I can't say I'm surprised. It's their way or the highway. Yesterday, a group of tea partiers was protesting on the steps of the Capitol. It's a wonderful thing to be able to protest in the open without any threat of government violence or censorship. It's a very American thing to do. Yet, while they're entitled to their opinion, it's important to point out that they were protesting against keeping the government open. Yes, Mr. Speaker, they want to shut the government down. Just look at the front page of CQ today. It's of a tea party member on the steps of the Capitol with a sign that says, ``Shut 'er down''; and Republicans in the House are doing their bidding. Enough is enough. It is time to act like adults and negotiate in good faith. It is time to come to a deal that keeps the government open--a deal without partisan, ideological riders that prevent health groups from providing important women's health information and health screenings, riders that prevent the EPA from keeping our air and water safe, riders that prevent independent, nonpartisan news agencies from reporting in places like Afghanistan, Egypt and Iraq. Mr. Speaker, it's time that the Republican Party does the right thing for its country and not just for the extremist wing of its party. At the end of this debate, I will oppose the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to provide a clean CR for 1 week. No harmful cuts or ideological riders like those that are included in the Republican bill. The government stays open while President Obama, Speaker Boehner and Senator Reid continue to negotiate. Now that they're at the table, it's time to let them do their jobs and come to a deal without a continual moving of the legislative goalposts that's going on under the Republican bill. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. McGOVERN. I am the final speaker on our side.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ 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 gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentlelady yield?

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, just two points. One, on the issue of abortion. The law of the land under the Hyde language is that no Federal funds can be used to finance abortion. Introducing abortion into this budget debate is divisive and doesn't belong there. But it is all about ideology, and I get it. So don't say it is about numbers anymore. It is about this kind of right-wing ideology, going after National Public Radio, trying to undercut the EPA. You know, I get it. There is a time and place to do that; this is not it. The other thing I would say, when I listen to my colleague from North Carolina, the question I was going to ask, if Republicans are responsible for deficit reduction under Bill Clinton, then who is responsible for the increase in deficit when they were in charge of the Presidency, the House and the Senate, when they had all three branches of government? At some point you have to take some responsibility, and at some point you have to live up to the fact that some of the policies that my colleagues pursued when they were in charge here drove this economy into a ditch and added significantly to our deficit. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank the gentleman from California, the chairman of the Rules Committee, for giving us his itinerary for the day. I'm glad he's meeting with the leaders of Mongolia, because this is a budget only the people of Mongolia would love because it is a tough budget on the people of the United States of America. He talks about their commitment to helping the poor in this country. I don't know how you do that when you cut WIC, when you go after Pell Grants, when you go after LIHEAP.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule and to the underlying legislation which is an assault on science and reason. Indeed, it is an assault on the very air we breathe. My Republican friends continue to bury their heads in the sand. Last night in the Rules Committee, along with my colleagues Earl Blumenauer and Peter Welch, I offered an amendment to end taxpayer subsidies to Big Oil, something the Republican leadership has refused to do. These subsidies have helped BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell make a combined profit of nearly $1 trillion over the past decade. That is trillion with a ``t.'' Give me a break. Our amendment would have raised $40 billion that would have gone straight toward deficit reduction. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, our amendment was defeated on a party-line vote. That shows exactly where the Republican priorities are, Madam Speaker, a radical redistribution of wealth from the middle class and the poor to the wealthiest people and corporations in the country. Yesterday, our Republican friends unveiled their budget proposal. That budget takes extreme, right-wing trickle-down economics to new levels. They want to destroy Medicare as we know it and impose a huge tax increase on middle class seniors through higher health care costs. They want to eviscerate Medicaid by turning it into a block grant program. They want to cut food stamps, education, infrastructure, environmental protection, and medical research, programs which actually create jobs and improve the lives of American working families. And at the same time, my Republican friends want to provide massive tax cuts to the very wealthiest Americans and corporations, including Big Oil companies that are reaping billions and billions and billions of dollars in profits each year. The Republican Party wants to increase health care costs for seniors in order to pay for their tax breaks for the rich. Those are wrong priorities, Madam Speaker. As Harold Meyerson wrote today in the Washington Post, ``If it does nothing else, the budget that House Republicans unveiled Tuesday provides the first real Republican program for the 21st century, and it is this: Repeal the 20th century.'' For the life of me, I can't understand why the people who caused the recession be allowed to keep everything while innocent workers get the bill. We all want to reduce the deficit, Madam Speaker. How about ending our occupation in Afghanistan? How about ending subsidies for multinational oil companies and agribusiness? How about asking hedge fund managers to pay a fair tax rate? The Republican leadership has made it clear that they are willing to shut the government down in order to achieve their right-wing, radical agenda. And if that happens, Madam Speaker--and I hope it doesn't, and I pray it doesn't--the American people need to know that the responsibility lies at the feet of the Republican Members of this House. Again, I urge my colleagues to reject this--again, another restrictive rule--and reject the underlying legislation.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, we are 1 day closer to a government shutdown, and the Republican leadership continues their obstinate crusade against everyday Americans. If their insistence on draconian cuts and their blind allegiance to a government shutdown weren't bad enough, their 2012 budget decimates SNAP and Medicaid, food and health care assistance programs for the most vulnerable people in America. Republicans continue their efforts to balance the budget on the backs of the poor, and we must not stand for that. But Americans from all walks of life are saying enough. Over 23,000 people--members of churches, mosques, and synagogues; union members and white collar workers; clergy and lay people--are fasting in opposition to the draconian Republican budget cuts. Democrats stand with those fasting in opposition to cuts to programs that make up the circle of protection, the programs that protect the hungry and the most vulnerable both here at home and around the world. We can and we should and we must do better. I urge my Republican colleagues, stop your assault on the poor. Stop your assault against the poor. You could read more about their efforts at www.hungerfast.org.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, last week USAID Administrator Raj Shah testified before the House Subcommittee on Foreign Operations. In his testimony he stated, and I quote, ``We estimate, and I believe these are very conservative estimates, that H.R. 1 would lead to 70,000 kids dying.'' This means, conservatively speaking, that the GOP budget cuts could result in the deaths of 70,000 children around the world from disease, from hunger, from lack of basic immunizations, mosquito nets, and food. These callous and brutal cuts are not only a stain on the moral conscience of this House; they directly undermine our national security and our economic future. Over 23,000 people from faith groups and other organizations are fasting in protest of these draconian cuts. Join them at www.hungerfast.org. I urge my colleagues to restore funding for these humanitarian and development programs. The lives of 70,000 children are at stake. Shah: GOP Budget Would Kill 70,000 Children (Posted by Josh Rogin, March 31, 2011) As Congress struggles to negotiate a budget deal to keep the government running, the head of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) told lawmakers Wednesday that the GOP version of the budget bill would result in the deaths of at least 70,000 children who depend on American food and health assistance around the world. ``We estimate, and I believe these are very conservative estimates, that H.R. 1 would lead to 70,000 kids dying,'' USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah testified before the House Appropriations State and Foreign Ops subcommittee. ``Of that 70,000, 30,000 would come from malaria control programs that would have to be scaled back specifically. The other 40,000 is broken out as 24,000 would die because of a lack of support for immunizations and other investments and 16,000 would be because of a lack of skilled attendants at birth,'' he said. The Republican bill, known as H.R. 1, was passed by the House, and would fund the government for the rest of fiscal 2011. It would effectively cut 16 percent from the Obama administration's original fiscal 2011 request for the international affairs account. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL) pointed out that H.R. 1 would provide $430 million for the International Disaster Assistance (IDA) account, which is 50 percent below the president's fiscal 2011 request and 67 percent below fiscal 2010 levels. Shah said that such a cut ``would be, really, the most dramatic stepping back away from our humanitarian responsibilities around the world in decades.'' The IDA account supports 1.6 million people in Darfur, so halving the account would place 800,000 people at risk, he said. ``[T]his would lead to a significant amount of reduction in feeding programs, medical programs and food and water programs for people who are incredibly vulnerable,'' he added. Shah was also testifying in defense of the administration's fiscal 2012 budget request, which also faces the axe on Capitol Hill. Subcommittee Chairwoman Kay Granger (R-TX) opened the hearing by announcing that the administration's fiscal 2012 request was dead on arrival. ``While I understand the value of many of these important programs, the funding request for next year is--is truly unrealistic in today's budget environment,'' she said. ``We simply cannot fund everything that has been funded in the past. And we certainly cannot continue to fund programs that are duplicative and wasteful.'' Granger said she would support USAID programs that have national security implications or contribute to the ongoing missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Her Democratic counterpart, Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY), said that national security is threatened by instability in other parts of the world as well. ``Drastic cuts to USAID would risk a great deal in stability and security around the world which could spawn the kinds of threats that cost this country the lives of men and women in uniform and billions in treasure,'' she said. Shah argued that foreign assistance is crucial to the long term economic recovery because it helps develop markets for American goods. ``USAID's work also strengthens America's economic security. By establishing links to consumers at the bottom of the pyramid, we effectively position American countries to enter more markets and sell more goods in the economies of the future, promoting exports and creating American jobs,'' he said.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the Hunger Fast of 2011, the efforts by anti-hunger leaders to highlight the draconian cuts to important, lifesaving programs included in H.R. 1, the House Republican budget proposal, continues to expand. Every day the number of Hunger Fast participants increases. Every day awareness of these cuts to those programs that provide a circle of protection rises. Every day the resolve to fight these cuts grows. I am thankful and proud of these brave Americans who are giving up food to fight against these harmful cuts to programs like WIC, as well as other important safety-net programs. This weekend, more joined this effort, including the heads and members of SEIU, MoveOn, and many others. Budgets are moral documents, and the cuts in H.R. 1 cross that moral line. I stand with the participants of Hunger Fast in opposition to H.R. 1. Instead of cutting programs that help people get access to food and nutrition, we should commit ourselves to ending hunger in America. Please go to www.hungerfast.org for more information.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this closed rule and to the ridiculous, meaningless, and unconstitutional underlying legislation. Today the Republican leadership has brought forward a bill that they call, without any apparent trace of irony, the Government Shutdown Prevention Act of 2011. This bill was introduced on Wednesday and rushed to the floor without the 72 hours of notice that the Republicans promised. Even though the bill was referred to four different committees, not a single hearing has been held, not a single markup has taken place. Where is the openness? Where is the fairness? This process is lousy. This bill would not only have no practical effect, it's not even remotely constitutional. If my friends on the other side of the aisle want to put out a press release or issue a series of talking points, hey, it's a free country. But to waste the time of the House on something this ridiculous is an insult to the American people. We should be talking about jobs and the economy, not debating silliness that is supposed to appeal to the GOP's right-wing base. If my friends want to avert a government shutdown--and make no mistake, because of your intransigence, because of your insistence on cutting everything from Pell Grants to the National Institutes of Health, this is in your hands. This is in your hands. But if you want to avert a government shutdown, I have an idea. Pick up the phone. Send a note. Or, better yet, engage in meaningful negotiations with the Senate and the White House. Enough pontificating, enough polarization. Do your job. My Republican colleagues like to talk a lot about the sanctity of the Constitution. They made a big display of reading the entire document on the floor of the House at the beginning of this Congress. Apparently they weren't paying very much attention. For the benefit of my Republican colleagues, let me read from article I, section 7: ``Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States. If he approve he shall sign it; but if not, he shall return it . . . '' Instead, what this bill says is that if the Senate hasn't passed a continuing resolution by April 6, then H.R. 1 would be deemed as passed by the Senate, signed by the President, and enacted into law. You have got to be kidding me, Madam Speaker. If this is the new standard that the Republicans are going to use, I have a few ideas of my own. I would like to introduce a bill that says that the House deems the Red Sox to have won the 2011 World Series. It wouldn't mean anything. It wouldn't be constitutional. But it sure would be popular in Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, this would be laughable if it weren't so outrageous. I urge my colleagues to reject this closed rule and the underlying legislation, and I urge my Republican friends to go back to the negotiating table and negotiate in good faith with the other body.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I've listened with great interest. My friend from California (Mr. Dreier) kind of amended a little bit what the Republican majority promised. I think I heard him right, that open rules now are only limited to appropriations bills and nothing else.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let's talk about process. Notwithstanding the promises of open rules, we've been here for 13 weeks and not a single open rule. Not a single open rule. And I will tell you that there's something wrong with the process when after all this time we have yet to do anything to help create jobs or promote jobs in this country. Jobs are the most important issue. A couple of weeks ago, we were dealing with National Public Radio. It was brought to the floor under an emergency rule. An emergency rule. What kind of process is that? You would think that we were going to talk about something important like the potential war in Libya or about how we put people back to work. Instead an emergency rule was utilized to bring a bill to defund National Public Radio. There's something wrong with this process when we're talking about that and not talking about jobs. At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, I want to commend the gentleman from Ohio for his efforts on trying to promote fairness and would reiterate that the issue in question has no business being in this bill. This should not have been put into this bill. I consider it a poison pill. Again, I think it reflects this troubling pattern that we see all across the country where my friends on the other side of the aisle seem to be siding against working people. I would also just say about the process that we were told that there would be open rules, open rules, open rules. We have not had one. Every member on the Republican side in the Rules Committee has been given an opportunity to vote for an open rule, and they have voted it down every single time. This afternoon we're going to take up this bill, this deem and pass bill, or whatever people are calling it, which I think is not constitutionally sound but nonetheless we're bringing it up. We'll have another opportunity then to have a vote on an open rule. I wonder where my friends on the Republican side will be on opening up that process. My guess is it will come to the floor either under a closed rule or very restrictive process. So let's be clear: There's not been one truly open rule yet. At this point I would like to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished ranking member on the Rules Committee, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).

Mr. McGOVERN. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend the efforts of our former colleague, Tony Hall; Reverend David Beckman; Reverend Jim Wallis; Mark Bittman; and more than 6,000 people across the country as they take part in a hunger fast to protest the draconian cuts to programs that affect the hungry and the most vulnerable in America and around the world. The Republican plan, H.R. 1, would decimate what is now being called the Circle of Protection--the programs that protect the hungry and the most vulnerable here at home and around the world. I urge my colleagues to show that America doesn't turn its back on people in need, to have a heart, and to resist cutting these lifesaving programs. Please go to www.hungerfast .org for more information. Protecting Programs for Low-Income People: A Circle of Protection