Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to have entered into the Record a statement as to why this is not an open rule and about the restrictions that are on Members who are wishing to offer amendments. What's Wrong With a Modified Open Rule? A modified open rule such as this one imposes several restrictions on Members wishing to offer amendments: It stifles the free flow of debate by preventing Members from offering amendments inspired by the debate or by other amendments. Several years ago Chairman Dreier succinctly explained why an open rule is superior to a modified open rule. He said: ``An open rule means that as the legislative process proceeds, as an amendment passes, it can spark an idea for an amendment that another Member may choose to offer with the changes that are made in the legislation.'' A modified open rule also limits Members' ability to respond to changes on the floor that would require redrafting an amendment. And the rule in front of us goes even further than any modified open rule I've ever seen by adding the unprecedented provision that prohibits using offsets from one subcommittee allocation to transfer funds to a different subcommittee allocation. The rule finally provides for same day consideration of another rule for H.R. 1, which will allow the Republican Majority to report out a new rule shutting down the amendment process and take it to the floor that very same day. We haven't even begun debate, and already Republicans have prepared to further restrict this supposedly open process. I think Chairman Dreier said it best just last month when describing a rule even less restrictive than this one. He said: ``This is not an open rule. I want to make it very clear to all my colleagues again: This is not an open rule.'' I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in very, very strong opposition to this resolution. As I said yesterday during the debate on the rule, there are numerous, serious problems with this resolution. First, it's meaningless rhetoric. My friends on the other side of the aisle like to talk a lot about cutting government spending, but the resolution before us doesn't cut a single dollar from the Federal budget; not a single cent. The Republican Study Committee recently proposed $2.5 trillion in budget cuts and their chairman, Mr. Jordan from Ohio, said the following when he introduced this plan: ``One hundred billion dollars is the number the American people heard last fall. It seems to me we should be able to find $100 billion.'' Yet even after pledging a $100 billion cut in funding, the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee couldn't come up with a number when we asked yesterday, and instead produced what is most likely the first budget resolution in history that doesn't contain any budget numbers. That might be because the Republican majority can't seem to figure out what the numbers should be. We have heard all kinds of numbers. We have heard $30 billion, $50 billion, $100 billion and beyond. But I suspect, Madam Speaker, that's because the Republican majority is discovering that it's a lot harder to walk the walk than it is to talk the talk, and it is a lot easier to say things in a campaign than it is to do things in a legislative body. They are realizing that when you start trying to make those kinds of cuts, you start seriously affecting the American economy and the American people. We are told that the Congressional Budget Office will produce some numbers tomorrow. I wonder why we couldn't wait until tomorrow to debate this resolution, but the answer is obvious. The President of the United States will be here this evening for the State of the Union address, and the Republican majority needs a new set of talking points. It's that kind of politics--where message is more important than substance--that makes the American people cynical about Washington. Second, the resolution continues the dangerous precedent of giving one individual, the chairman of the Budget Committee--rather than the full membership of this House--the ability to set spending levels for the Federal Government. And third, the resolution's vague and unjustified wording that only targets ``non-security'' spending, even though everyone from Secretary Gates to Speaker Boehner has recognized that waste exists in the Department of Defense and in the Department of Homeland Security and other security-related agencies. It says a great deal about the priorities of a new Republican majority that they will treat wasteful contracts and redundant weapons systems as sacred, but would put Pell Grants, medical research, food safety, FBI, ATF and DEA agents, and other vital programs on the chopping block. Of course, when we Democrats have the audacity to talk about the need to protect those important programs, our Republican friends grow indignant and head to the fainting couch. ``Oh, no,'' they say, ``we would never cut those things.'' But Madam Speaker, the numbers just don't add up. When you start saying that popular program after popular program will be protected, you realize that it would take massive cuts in other parts of the budget. When we talk about exempting only security programs, it means that other programs will need to be cut by 30 percent below current levels. That means the Department of Justice has to cut 4,000 FBI agents, 800 ATF agents, 1,500 DEA agents, and 900 U.S. Marshals. Federal prisons have to cut 5,700 correctional officers, and the Federal Government will lose the capacity to detain 26,000 people because of their immigration status. Of course, the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee said we're not going to cut the FBI, as he said yesterday, so I can only assume that means more ATF agents, DEA agents, and U.S. Marshals will be fired by the Republicans. I can only assume that this means more than 26,000 people in this country illegally won't be in Federal custody. That's the Republican agenda? Madam Speaker, I think former Secretary of State Colin Powell said it best this weekend: ``I'm very put off when people just say, let's go back and freeze to the level 2 years ago. Don't tell me you're going to freeze to a level. That usually is a very inefficient way of doing it. Tell me what you're going to cut.'' As I urge my colleagues to reject this misguided resolution, I ask my Republican colleagues, what's the number? And what are you going to cut? I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman, and I reclaim my time. I appreciate the brevity of the bill, but that doesn't mean the bill doesn't have a very negative impact. And when we tried yesterday to protect the FBI and enforcement agents from cuts, that was voted down. So we are very concerned because we don't know what the number is. And I think people in this Congress on both sides of the aisle, the American people, ought to know what we're talking about. Is it $100 billion? Or is it more? Where is it? And where are those cuts going to come from when you keep on exempting programs? With that, Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I have great respect for the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and I appreciate the fact that we are going to have to make tough choices; but he as well failed to tell us what the number is or what those tough choices are going to be. Are we going to cut medical research, Pell Grants, food safety, small business loans, job training programs, LIHEAP, summer food programs for the hungry? What are we going to cut? I think that Members on both sides of the aisle deserve to know what the number is so we can figure out what the pain is going to be. For the life of me, I can't understand, and I don't think the American people can understand, why Members of this House will not be given an opportunity to vote on that number. We ought to have that right. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 10 seconds.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, the bill makes defense spending sacrosanct and says nothing about going after fraud and waste in defense contracts. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Hoyer and then myself at this moment.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland, the minority whip, Mr. Hoyer.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself 1\3/4\ minutes. Mr. Speaker, the problem with this resolution, as has been stated over and over and over again, is that it is a press release. It contains no number. People on the other side talk about tough choices. It doesn't talk about any of the tough choices. It exempts defense spending from any cuts, so fraudulent defense contracts are somehow okay, that it's better than waste and abuse in domestic spending programs. Everything should be on the table when we're talking about getting this budget deficit under control. The reason why the number is so important is because that number determines how much we're going to allocate to the various appropriations committees; and that in turn determines really the severity of a lot of the cuts that are going to have to be made: cuts in medical research--research to try to find a cure to cancer; cuts in programs to help feed hungry children; cuts in programs to provide emergency fuel assistance to low-income people during the winter months; cuts in small business loans that can help small businesses get the capital they need to grow and create jobs. We should be talking about jobs in the opening of the session. Instead, what we have talked about are the old ideological battles of the past. Last week we repealed the entire health care bill. This week, we're passing a budget resolution that has no number in it. I mean, this is a first. This is unprecedented. And I think the American people who are watching are wondering why in the world can't you tell us what the number is; why in the world can't you give us a sense of what you're going to cut. Why in the world can't you even vote on it? There are 435 Members of this House. Only one Member is going to be able to determine what that budget number is.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, we are engaged in political theater today. We know the CBO will come out with numbers tomorrow, but the Republicans feel it's important to do this today because somehow they think the press will pay attention to this and they'll be able to have a countermessage to the President's State of the Union address. They are blowing a major opportunity. There is bipartisan concern about the budget. There is a bipartisan consensus that we need to find cuts. And rather than working in a bipartisan way, we have a bill that comes to the floor under a closed rule. We are told that the chairman of the Budget Committee can unilaterally come up with a number; the rest of us are irrelevant to this process. That's not the way it's supposed to be. And I think that the Republican majority owes it not only to the Members of this Congress, but they owe it to the American people to tell us what the number is and where they're going to cut, how deeply they're going to cut, who's going to be impacted. Because I will tell you this: Who's going to be impacted are real people, and they're going to feel the real pain of some of these cuts. With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this misguided resolution, this press release. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I'm still waiting to hear the number and how much we're going to cut. I am waiting to see this transparency and accountability. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I enjoyed the previous speaker. I would just simply ask: What is the problem with telling us what the number is and what you're going to cut? The number is important because that does determine what you are going to cut. It determines what the allocations are going to be to the various appropriations committees, and they have real consequences. The notion that we are doing something bold here by coming up with this arbitrary, you know, statement that it's 2008 or less levels we're going to go to without any detail, without any numbers, without anything of anything, is political posturing at its worse. With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I think what the American people are interested in is serious legislating and serious discussion on how to get this budget under control and not political posturing. At this point I would like to yield 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 1 minute.

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