Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I'm glad the chairman of the Budget Committee finally joined this debate. And I would say two things. One is that last year we passed the Budget Enforcement Act with real numbers in it, and we voted on it, and it was significantly less than the numbers that the President had proposed, number one. Number two, one of the things that we proposed in the Rules Committee was an amendment to allow Members of the House, on both sides of the aisle, to be able to vote on the number. And that was rejected on party line as somehow a radical idea. And then the chairman of the Rules Committee talks about this free-flowing debate we are having. We are having this debate today under a closed rule, and so there's no opportunity for amendment.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 20 seconds.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of a true friend and valued public servant, Ms. Paula Buonomo, for her years of dedicated service to the constituents of the Massachusetts Third Congressional District. After 14 years as District Representative in my Worcester Congressional Office, Paula is retiring to spend more time with her family and especially her beautiful baby granddaughter, Abigail. Paula joined my Worcester office early in my first term in 1997. Since that time she has exhibited consistent excellence and shown a thoughtful and compassionate hand in all of her work. She has been tireless in her approach with constituents, always welcoming and personable, a model of patient kindness. Most of all, Paula has been a delight to work with these many years, and I know that I speak not only for myself, but for my entire staff when I say that we will all miss her dearly. It is bittersweet to say goodbye to a beloved and loyal colleague, but I know that Paula will remain involved in many other important efforts, including her work at the Worcester County Food Bank, where she serves on the board, and her church, St. Matthew's Parish of Worcester. Whatever projects or ventures she takes on, I am confident that Paula will continue to make a positive difference in her community. Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the United States House of Representatives joins me in recognizing Ms. Paula Buonomo for her many years of dedicated public service to the constituents of the Massachusetts Third Congressional District, and for the indispensable role she has played as one of my most trusted and valued staff members. I wish her only the best in all of her future endeavors.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman 15 seconds.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments, although it has really nothing to do with the bill we're talking about here today. And our concern about this budget bill before us is that there's no number in it, and it essentially is a press release, I guess, to be able to talk about tomorrow after the State of the Union. I also want to clarify what happened in the Rules Committee. I did offer an amendment that was rejected on party line that said that Members of Congress ought to have the ability to vote on this magic number that the chairman of the Budget Committee will come up with. That was rejected. There was also an amendment offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida which would have allowed Mr. Van Hollen, who is our ranking member on the Budget Committee, a substitute. That was rejected. And there was also an amendment for an open rule so that we could have a free and open debate, and that was rejected. So there were amendments that were offered, and they were rejected. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) for a point of clarification.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Rules Committee for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this closed rule. So much for an open process, and so much for a free flow of ideas. I also rise in strong opposition to the underlying resolution. Once again, the Republican majority is choosing to ignore the single most important issue facing the American people: jobs. My Republican friends have instead brought forth a resolution, H. Res. 38, that they tout as some sort of spending reduction measure. In fact, the resolution doesn't cut a single dollar--not one dime--from the Federal budget. If this were a good-faith effort, there would be some numbers in this resolution. Instead, the resolution says that we should ``assume non- security spending at fiscal year 2008 levels or less'' without defining ``non-security'' spending or specifying exactly what those levels might be. In other words, Mr. Speaker, this is a budget resolution without any numbers, which is why it is so meaningless. We are told that the numbers are on their way, that the Congressional Budget Office will tell us on Wednesday of this week what the impact of this resolution would be if it were actually put into place. So why are we here today debating this issue? Why can't we wait until Wednesday when we have the numbers? The answer is as plain as the calendar on the wall: it's politics, pure and simple. The Republican leadership has scheduled a vote on the resolution tomorrow just before President Obama addresses the Nation in his State of the Union Address. That way, they'll have a fresh set of talking points for their response to the President. They'll be able to say, ``Look how serious we are about cutting government funding,'' when, of course, they haven't cut anything. Another problem with the resolution is that it reinforces the terrible precedent that the Republican majority established in their rules package at the beginning of this Congress. Under those rules, a single Member of Congress, the chairman of the Budget Committee, has the authority to determine spending levels for the government for the rest of the year. Now, like all of my colleagues, I have a great deal of respect for the current chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. Ryan. But I strongly disagree with the notion that he and only he should determine something as fundamental as the budget of the United States. Mr. Speaker, we have to vote in this House to change the name of a post office. But we can't have a vote on how much we should spend on education, on food safety, on infrastructure, on environmental cleanup, or on medical research? That's a far cry from the openness and transparency that my Republican friends promised. Last week in the Rules Committee, I offered an amendment to this resolution that would have allowed the other 435 Members of the House the opportunity to vote on this critical issue. But my Republican colleagues defeated my amendment on a party-line vote. And finally, Mr. Speaker, the resolution walls off defense spending from the budget axe. We hear all the time from my friends on the other side of the aisle that everything should be on the table. Why then would they take hundreds of billions of dollars of potential savings off the table right out of the gate? Even Speaker Boehner on a recent interview said, ``I believe there's room to find savings in the Department of Defense.'' Well, if that's true--and it most certainly is--then why does this resolution treat defense spending as sacred and untouchable? Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the Federal budget, the Republican majority is not off to a good start. Their rules package paved the way for them to add nearly $5 trillion to the deficit. Last week, they voted to repeal the health care law and add another $230 billion to the deficit. And now they are rushing a 1-page bill without a single number and without any specifics about how and where they want to cut. What we are doing today, Mr. Speaker, is not real. There are no tough choices being made today. This is show business, and quite frankly, it diminishes the legislative process. The American people deserve much, much better. I urge my colleagues to reject this closed rule, and I urge them to reject the underlying bill. I reserve the balance of my time. General Leave

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me acknowledge the presence of my new colleague who is on the Rules Committee and simply say that, if this were a serious effort, there would be numbers in this bill. There are none. This is about issuing a press release after the State of the Union so that Republicans can have a talking point to go home with. This is not a serious effort. And if it were, there would be real numbers in there. If we were interested in rigorous debate, this would be an open rule. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), the ranking member on the Budget Committee.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am glad my friends on the other side of the aisle are happy that they voted to repeal the affordable health care bill, but I will tell that you there are real people in this country who are benefiting from the real protections in the bill who are quite anxious about the fact that there are people who want to remove the protection, for example, that prohibits insurance companies from discriminating against people with preexisting conditions. There are parents who can keep their kids on their insurance until they are 26 who are not too happy about that repeal. There are senior citizens who are benefiting from the closing of the doughnut hole who are actually feeling some benefits from this health care bill. They're not too happy that the Republicans want to repeal all of that. And on top of that, the CBO said it adds considerably to our deficit. At this point I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, a ``no'' vote on the previous question will allow the House to consider an amendment exempting cuts in funding to the FBI's counterterrorism program, an amendment that will ensure we do not sacrifice our Nation's security in this post-9/11 world. I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can ensure that we continue to protect this Nation from terrorism. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, let me close by saying that this is not the way we should deal with the budget. And transparency, I will tell my Republican friends, means knowing what the budget number is. I don't know why that's such a radical idea. And accountability means that everybody in this House should be able to vote yes or no on whatever that number is. It shouldn't be up to one person to unilaterally determine that number. This budget process that the Republicans have put together politicizes unnecessarily a budget process and sets, I think, a lousy precedent. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will modify this rule to provide that immediately after the House passes this rule it will take up an amendment to exempt cuts in funding for the FBI's counterterrorism program. My Republican colleagues said they won't cut programs that protect our Nation's security, but the resolution itself doesn't even bother to define ``non-security spending.'' And the definition I have heard from the other side of the aisle would not include the FBI's counterterrorism program. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out one of the reasons why these questions are coming up is because when this resolution was brought before the Rules Committee, the chairman of the Budget Committee didn't show nor did the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. And there are no numbers in this bill. So we are very, very concerned about what numbers might exist out there. I think people in this House, Democrats and Republicans, ought to know what the real numbers are.

Mr. McGOVERN. I appreciate the gentleman for making that point of clarification. However, what we are talking about is setting the spending levels for this House which directly impacts the chairman of the Budget Committee and the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. So if there are questions about how deep these cuts are going to be and where they are going to come from, it is because we have no clarity. At this point I would yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

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

Mr. McGOVERN. I would remind my colleagues, when they read the resolution, it is 2008 levels or less, so it muddles the number even more. At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. At this time I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds. I would remind the gentleman, because he's on the Rules Committee with me, that we could have had a chance to vote on all those things individually and in fact he did have a chance to vote as to whether or not we could vote on them individually on the floor, but he and the other Republicans on the Rules Committee voted each and every one of those protections down. They voted against protecting people against preexisting conditions. They voted against closing the doughnut hole. They voted against allowing people under 26 to be able to stay on their parents' health insurance.