Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I am standing on the floor of the House of Representatives where Members of Congress get sworn in, and I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, under the rules of the House and the United States Constitution, can a committee of the House be presided over by someone who is not a Member of the House of Representatives and who is not a member of that committee?

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Well, Mr. Speaker, that didn't take long. Our Republican friends have been in charge of the House for about 1 hour, and already they are up to their old discredited tricks. They promised the American people that they were serious about deficit reduction. Apparently that promise was for campaign purposes only, because the Republicans' rule package before us today paves the way for a huge explosion in our national debt to the tune of $5 trillion. That's trillion with a ``t''. The new Republican majority is attempting to drag this country back to their supply-side fantasyland where deficits either don't matter or could be addressed by giving huge tax breaks to the very, very wealthy. Back here in the real world their proposals would do real harm to real middle class families. They want to slash funding for education, for infrastructure, for investments and new technology, for medical research, for job training. You name it. If the new program benefits working families, it's on the chopping block. But if you are a wealthy hedge fund manager or a huge defense contractor or a playboy son of a dead multimillionaire, you are in luck. Your tax breaks are safe. As The Washington Post said in a recent editorial, When it comes to tax cuts, it's all go, no pay. I would say to my Republican friends, if you care about deficit reduction, if you meant what you said on the campaign trail, then vote against this misguided rules package. If you want transparency, then do away with the smoke and mirrors. If you want accountability, then stop the hypocrisy. This rules package is shameful. This new Republican majority appears determined to do what they have done in the past, and that is dig this country deeper and deeper into debt. It is the wrong thing to do. Vote ``no.''

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, oh, my goodness. There are a lot of things that come before the Members of this body that, I think, are worth getting all worked up about and that, I think, sometimes understandably lead to partisan bickering; but as to what we are talking about here today, to me and to, I think, most people who are watching, this should be fairly noncontroversial. What we are talking about is a rule that will allow us to consider three bills. One is called the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010. What does this radical bill do? It authorizes funding increases for the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes for Science and Technology, and the Department of Energy's Office of Science for fiscal years 2010-2013, on a path toward increasing substantially our investment in research and development over the next 10 years. It is not even an appropriation. It is an authorization. So the Appropriations Committee next year can work their will and decide whether to invest more in science so that we can compete in this global economy, or will we not invest in science and actually do what some of my friends on the other side of the aisle will tell you about taking a meat ax to these programs, you know, and putting ourselves at a competitive disadvantage? This is a bill about supporting and expanding American energy technology so we are not so reliant on foreign oil and so we don't go to war over oil. It is a national security issue, but this somehow is a controversial bill. This should pass easily. The other bill that is so radical, according to my colleague on the Republican side of the aisle, is called the Government Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Performance Improvement Act. What does this bill do? It basically says to agencies and departments, look, you need to work to come up with a plan to prevent unnecessary and wasteful spending and to help eliminate Federal Government waste by working with us to help us find where those wasteful areas are. Now, this is what is causing such consternation on the other side of the aisle? I mean, rather than just taking a meat ax and saying an arbitrary percentage cut across the board, what this bill says is let's think about what we're doing. Maybe we can cut 5 percent; maybe we can cut 10 percent; maybe we can cut even more. Well, let's do this in a sensible way where we don't adversely impact services that directly impact the American people for the good. Let's have a plan. Let's just not do this senselessly. Let's do this sensibly. Somehow, this radical, awful bill has caused all this noise by my colleague on the other side of the aisle. The final bill is the Food Safety Modernization Act. Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier--and it's worth repeating--in this country, literally 76 million Americans on a yearly basis are sickened by contaminated food that they digest--76 million Americans a year. More than 300,000 of them end up going to hospitals on a yearly basis, and 5,000 die. So what is this Congress trying to do? We are trying to find a way to protect consumers, and my colleague on the other side of the aisle is all upset about it. Oh, boy. What a terrible, awful idea to protect the health and well-being of the citizens of this country by updating our food safety rules and regulations, which haven't been updated in almost 30 years. Come on. I mean let's move forward with this rule. Let's consider these bills. I am sure they all will pass. With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Dr. Foxx. All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume. General Leave

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1781 provides for the consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 5116, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010. The rule makes in order a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on Science and Technology or his designee that the House concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 5116. The rule provides 1 hour of debate on the motion, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Science and Technology. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the motion except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. The rule provides that the Senate amendment shall be considered as read. The rule also provides for consideration of the Senate amendments to H.R. 2751, the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act. The rule makes in order a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or his designee that the House concur in the Senate amendments to H.R. 2751. The rule provides 1 hour of debate on the motion, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the motion except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. The rule provides the Senate amendments shall be considered as read. The rule also provides for the consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2142, the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010. The rule makes in order a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform or his designee that the House concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 2142. The rule provides 1 hour of debate on the motion, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the motion, except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. Finally, the rule provides that the Senate amendment be considered as read. Mr. Speaker, all three pieces of legislation deserve to be approved by this House. Mr. Speaker, today we will take up a rule that helps this Congress complete the work the American people sent us here to do. It has been far too long since this Congress has addressed the issue of food safety. Each year, 76 million Americans are sickened from consuming contaminated food, more than 300,000 people are hospitalized, and 5,000 die. In just the last few years, there has been a string of food-borne illness outbreaks in foods consumed by millions of Americans each day--from contaminated spinach to peanut butter to cookie dough. This bill puts a new focus on preventing food contamination before it occurs--putting new responsibilities on food producers and requiring them to develop a food safety plan and ensure the plan is working. By requiring importers to verify the safety of foreign suppliers and imported food, the American people can rest assured that the food they are eating is safe. And this bill allows the FDA to initiate a mandatory recall of a food product when a company fails to voluntarily recall the contaminated product upon FDA's request. Mr. Speaker, the American people have asked Congress to help keep them safe. The text of this food safety legislation in H.R. 2751 is nearly identical to language passed by the House in the continuing resolution on December 8, 2010, and passed the Senate on November 30, 2010, by a bipartisan vote of 73-25. H.R. 2751, this stand-alone food safety legislation, passed the Senate by voice vote on December 19, 2010. Mr. Speaker, this rule also provides for the consideration of H.R. 5116, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010. This bill invests in innovation through research and development, to improve the competitiveness of the United States. Mr. Speaker, the jobs of the future will not just be found in the industries of the past. They will be found in green technologies, biotechnology and advances in medical devices. This bill makes vital investments to keep America competitive in the global economy. By making investments in the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Science and Technology and the Department of Energy's Office of Science, America can be put on a path to double our research and development capabilities in 10 years. This funding will support programs to assist American manufacturers and create a loan guarantee program to support innovation in manufacturing. It will also support research and internship opportunities for high school and undergraduate students, increase graduate fellowships supported by NSF and DOE, and encourage students studying in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math areas to pursue teaching credentials, increasing the pool of qualified teachers for the next generation of young innovators. It will also promote productivity and economic growth by forming an Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship to foster innovation and the commercialization of new technologies, products, processes, and services. The Senate took up H.R. 5116, the America COMPETES Reauthorization on December 17, 2010, and passed it with an amendment by unanimous consent. Mr. Speaker, I believe that we can all get behind a bill that helps keep America driving the pace of technology. I also believe that we can all get behind the final piece of this rule that allows for consideration of H.R. 2142, the Government Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Performance Improvement Act of 2010. This bill requires each federal agency to draft plans that identify areas where the agency could improve its performance. At a time of year when many of us are making resolutions to better ourselves and to rid ourselves of our bad habits, I think it's fitting that Congress and our Federal government takes a look at itself to see where we can improve. Mr. Speaker, we were not sent here to be lame ducks. And this Congress has proven to be anything but, despite attempts to slow or cut off the process. This Congress has been one of the most productive in history--at a time when we need to be doing a little less nation- building around the world and more nation-building here at home. These important pieces of legislation will continue that productive work. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1781 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I don't want to prolong this debate, but if I could just make a couple of observations in the aftermath of the gentleman's speech. I should remind my colleagues that each year, 76 million Americans are sickened by contaminated food that they consumed. More than 300,000 of them are hospitalized and more than 5,000 each year die. We've heard about tainted eggs, tainted spinach, tainted peanut butter, tainted cookie dough. We haven't updated our food safety laws in decades. So here's the deal. If you want to do a better job of protecting the American consumer, you will have an opportunity, if you vote for this rule, to vote for the food safety bill. If you don't, then vote down the rule and vote against the bill when it comes up. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 1781.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, as we near the end of 2010 and the 111th Congress, I want to take a few minutes to talk about an issue that is critically important to the health and the well-being of our country. It's also an issue that I care deeply about and it's an issue that's rarely discussed. And that issue, Madam Speaker, is hunger. I've said it over and over again, but it bears repeating. Hunger is a political condition. We know how to end hunger in America. We have the resources to do it. What we need is the political will to make it happen. We've made some important progress over the last few years. We enacted historic improvements in the food stamp program, now called SNAP. WIC, the program that ensures that pregnant mothers and their newborns and infant children have access to nutritious food, has been fully funded. Food banks received the assistance they need to fill their shelves as they worked to put food in the hands of hungry families. We passed the Hunger-Free Communities Act, a law that provides localized grants to combat hunger around the country. The farm bill included historic improvements to antihunger programs--most importantly, indexing SNAP to inflation. The Recovery Act did even more by increasing emergency funds to SNAP beneficiaries, allowing them to buy more food at a time when their incomes were falling because of the economy. Finally, on December 13, President Obama signed the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act into law. This will improve the quality of food served at schools to our Nation's children. Madam Speaker, I have been honored to serve as the cochair of the House Hunger Caucus, and I want to thank my colleagues on that caucus, Democrat and Republican, for their commitment to this critical issue. I especially want to thank Jo Ann Emerson for her incredible work. But we have much more to do. The USDA recently released their annual food insecurity, or hunger, statistics. The simple and unfortunate fact is this: Because of the economy, hunger is getting worse in America, not better. In 2009, the number of hungry Americans increased by 1 million over the previous year. According to the latest data, over 50 million Americans, including 17.2 million children, went hungry at some point in 2009. Madam Speaker, these are the highest numbers ever collected by USDA. And if that weren't bad enough, future SNAP funds--money provided under the Recovery Act--have been raided for other critical programs. Madam Speaker, I love this institution and I am honored to serve as a Member of Congress, but it is a peculiar place. None of my colleagues, Democrats or Republicans, will tell you that they are pro-hunger. You'll never see a Member of Congress take a bottle out of the mouth of a hungry baby or swipe a can of beans that has been donated to a local food bank, but that's precisely what we will be doing if we choose to balance the budget on the backs of the poor and the hungry in this country. I want to tackle our deficit as badly as anyone else. And in order to dig ourselves out of this fiscal hole, then all of us will need to sacrifice--not just the poor and not just the middle class. It is simply unacceptable to provide billions in tax relief for millionaires and billionaires while at the same time cutting programs that literally put food in the mouths of hungry people. Ending hunger is not just the right thing to do--it's also in the best interest of our Nation's future. It's a national security issue. It's an education issue. It's a jobs issue. It's a health care issue. It's a productivity issue. It's a fiscal health issue. We have a lot of work to do, Madam Speaker. The President said he's committed to ending childhood hunger by 2015, but we're not doing enough to reach that goal. Budgets will be tight for the foreseeable future, and it's going to be difficult to fund these vital programs. I've repeatedly called on the White House to convene a conference on hunger and nutrition. Let's develop a comprehensive plan to tackle this terrible problem. But, Madam Speaker, this issue is not going away. We must not ignore the needs of the hungry in America. We must continue to work with antihunger groups, nutrition groups, religious groups, and the administration and others to finally end hunger in America. We can do this. We can end hunger in America if we have the political will to do it. I urge my colleagues in the 112th Congress to join in this effort.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 11 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 1771 waives the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII, requiring a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported from the Rules Committee. This would allow for the same-day consideration of any resolution reported through the legislative day of December 24, 2010. The resolution allows the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules through the legislative day of December 24, 2010. The Speaker or her designee shall consult with the minority leader or his designee on the designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to section 2 of the rule. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1771 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McGOVERN. For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume. General Leave

Mr. McGOVERN. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1771.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I regret that the gentleman from Texas will not support this rule so that we can move our legislative business forward, but I'm not surprised because, quite frankly, his party, the Republican Party, has had one goal since President Obama became President of the United States, and that is to obstruct and delay everything, and that's what they've tried to do. The gentleman talks about democracy. Well, I think the American people are scratching their head as they see what's happening over in the Senate where a minority, not a majority, but a minority determines the agenda. A minority can hold legislation from coming to the floor. That's not the democracy that most people believe our government is about. I'd also say to the gentleman that we look forward to the next legislative year, and we look forward to the gentleman and his party becoming the leaders of this House. And as someone who has been on the Rules Committee, both in the majority and minority, I don't recall a single instance when the gentleman, when his party was in power, ever voted against a closed rule proposed by the Republican then-majority, but we will see what happens. And I will also say, Madam Speaker, that one of the things I think that the American people are now beginning to realize is that the Republicans are not at all serious about fiscal discipline. You know, I remind everybody that when Bill Clinton was President, we had record job creation and we had historical fiscal restraint. We actually eliminated the deficit and started paying down the debt. When George Bush and the Republicans then took over, what ended up happening is they took this record surplus and turned it into historic debt. And how did they do it? Well, they did it through a number of things. Unpaid-for wars is one of them. The other is a Medicare prescription drug bill that, by the way, nobody here had a chance to read, that was voted on in the middle of the night. They kept the vote open 3 hours so that people's arms could be twisted, but it cost twice as much as anybody thought it was going to cost, not paid for. But the thing that really broke the bank was their unprecedented tax cuts and giveaways to the wealthiest individuals in this country, not paid for, not paid for. And sadly, Madam Speaker, the Republicans in the Senate held unemployment compensation, benefits to the millions of people in this country who are unemployed through no fault of their own, held that hostage so they could get their tax cuts for the rich. And those tax cuts for the rich, by the way, Madam Speaker, are not paid for, not a single offset to pay for those tax cuts for the rich. Donald Trump gets another tax cut, unpaid for; and guess what, that debt gets piled on the backs of my kids and the kids of every American in this country. It is just not right. I think the American people are beginning to realize that their real goal is to go after domestic spending in an unprecedented way--Social Security, Medicare, programs that benefit the most vulnerable in our country. They will launch an unprecedented war against the poor in this country. We are going to see early on what their real agenda is. And I bet, Madam Speaker, as polls will reveal, it is not what the American people had in mind. So, again, I regret that the Republicans continue to want to do the same old, same old which is to delay and obstruct and put off and put off. But I think we need to pass this rule. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the great State of New York (Mr. Rangel). (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to close simply by saying that I agree with many of my colleagues who have come to the floor today to express their concern about how these tax cuts--mostly for the rich-- will add an incredible debt burden on the backs of our children and our grandchildren. We can do better than this. I am also worried because I think what my friends on the Republican side want to do is basically kind of take tax cuts for the rich off the table next year when they use a budget axe to go after domestic spending. I would just say to my colleagues that as we have this debate on tax cuts, there are a lot of people in this country who this debate is meaningless to because they're falling through the cracks. We have an obligation to help strengthen the safety net in this country. And I worry about the agenda that my Republican colleagues are going to pursue next year. I worry that it's going to be on the backs of the most vulnerable in this country, and that is wrong. We have an obligation, a moral obligation to be able to make sure that everybody in this country not only has opportunity, but is also not allowed to fall through the cracks. We have a hunger problem in this country. We have children who go to sleep at night hungry in the richest country in the world. We should be ashamed of ourselves. We can do better than add to the deficit by giving more tax cuts to the wealthy. Mr. Speaker, with that, I withdraw the resolution.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).

Mr. McGOVERN. My understanding is that there is an informal agreement that there will be time designated for those in opposition; at least an hour.

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the chairwoman. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule but in reluctant opposition to the underlying legislation. Let me begin by saying that I know there are a lot of goods things in this bill. The bill extends tax relief for middle class families. It extends unemployment insurance for Americans who, through no fault of their own, find themselves out of work in this difficult economy. The bill also extends several important tax relief measures that were included in last year's recovery package, including the parity for transit benefits, which is a measure that I have worked on here in the House. I understand and appreciate the situation in which President Obama found himself. He was faced with the United States Senate that demands a supermajority of 60 votes to order pizza, let alone enact significant legislation. Over the past 2 years, our Republican colleagues in the Senate have blown by the previous records for filibusters. They have made it clear that their overriding political strategy is to say ``no'' to whatever President Obama proposes, no matter how worthy or popular. And that's unfortunate, but that's the reality we face. And it is unbelievably cynical. But I believe that the provisions in this bill that give away billions and billions and billions of dollars to the wealthiest Americans are unnecessary, unproductive, and irresponsible. Unnecessary, because over the past few years, while millions of middle class families struggled to pay their mortgages and put food on the table, the wealthiest few in America have done very well. The fat cats on Wall Street are riding high once again with multimillion-dollar bonuses and golden parachutes. Unproductive, because study after study have shown that one of the least effective ways to stimulate the economy is to put more money into the pockets of the rich. The wealthiest few are more likely to save that money rather than invest it in our economy. CBO has found that of all the things we could do to stimulate the economy, tax breaks for the rich people in this country have the worst record of encouraging economic growth. And irresponsible, because this bill will add billions and billions of dollars onto our Nation's debt. None of these tax cuts are paid for.