Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to Mr. Obey to respond to the last speaker, I would like to express my surprise that he would oppose a bill in which he has 30 earmarks in it. At this point, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee (Mr. Obey).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to defend George W. Bush's economic policies of the last 8 years. They can have at it. I think the American people want a change. That's what they voted for in this election. I would just like to show my colleagues: This is a chart entitled ``Record Deterioration'' on the budgets under Republican administrations. You'll see that we get deeper into deficit spending under George Bush 1. Then the blue line represents Bill Clinton when, actually, we went into surplus. Then this red line that kind of goes after the charts represents the policies of George W. Bush. We are in a mess because of the reckless policies of the last 8 years, and we need to dig ourselves out of it. I would also say to my friend that he says that there is no Republican input on this bill at all. Yet, as far as I can tell, he has seven earmarks in this bill. The gentleman from Florida, who is sitting next to him, has 24 earmarks. Forty percent of the earmarks in this bill is the Republicans'. How did they magically show up in this bill? The bottom line is there has been bipartisan cooperation and collaboration and negotiation on this bill, and we need to get this bill done because we need to move on. At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado, a distinguished member of the Rules Committee (Mr. Polis).

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, the bill before us will save or create more than 3 million jobs, and it will help people put food on their tables and receive health care as they try to make it through this recession. We need to fix this economy, and Democrats, with or without the Republicans, are going to do what is necessary to help the American people. Enough of politics as usual. We need to move forward. The American people are looking to us for help, and this package provides the help that they need. I congratulate the Speaker and the leadership and the chairman who worked on this recovery package. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and to support H.R. 1.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, on January 20, President Obama and his administration inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression. A record budget deficit and a worsening economy, an economy that is now losing 600,000 jobs a month, was the result of failed economic policies. For too long, the previous administration allowed the deficit to rise through wasteful spending, including unpaid wars and tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, while ignoring the challenges facing our economy. Let me be clear: This economy did not go bad overnight. No, Madam Speaker. It took years of neglect to bring us to this position. As a result, we are here today, trying to help our economy with a bold and historic recovery package. Economists ranging from conservative to liberal all agree that a recovery package is needed and that such a package must be bold. Any recovery package, they say, must provide a real shot in the arm to the economy, and that is what we have before us today. We have a package that will provide immediate funding to help the economy, but it is also designed to prevent an economic lull like the one we saw a few years after the Great Depression. Madam Speaker, we have people in our country who are going hungry, and there is money in this package for food stamps--the most effective and immediate stimulus available--and there is money for unemployment. There is money for roads and for bridges and for other important shovel-ready infrastructure programs. Yes, there are targeted tax cuts that will allow middle- and low-income families to receive tax relief during these trying times. Is it perfect? No. This is not the package I would draft if it were solely up to me, but it is the package that came through a bipartisan and open process. Now, my Republican friends had the opportunity to address this problem. Former President Bush could have acted on these programs before he left office, but he chose not to do so, allowing the recession to worsen. When Republicans decided to put forth an alternative plan, it was simply comprised of the failed policies of yesterday. When economists said there should be money for food stamps, my Republican friends on the other side of the aisle said ``no.'' When economists said there should be money for transportation and infrastructure, my Republican friends said ``no.'' When economists said there should be money for unemployment and for aid to States for school construction, my friends on the other side of the aisle said ``no.'' Madam Speaker, it is not enough to say ``no'' and to simply revert to the failed policies of the past. My friends offered their package. We had a vote and it failed miserably. People have had it with the failed economic policies of George W. Bush. Yet, instead of trying to work with President Obama and this Congress on a real recovery package, they continued to defy the needs of the American people and continued saying ``no.'' Saying ``no'' is easy. Saying ``no'' means you don't have to take responsibility for anything, but that is not what the American people want, and that is not what the American people voted for in the November elections.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to rise today alongside my colleagues to pay tribute to an extraordinary legislator, my friend John Dingell. John Dingell is, quite simply, a giant of this House. Today he reaches a remarkable milestone, becoming the longest-serving member of this institution. That achievement alone would be worthy of commemoration and celebration. But it's not simply the length of his service that makes John remarkable--it's what he has accomplished in those 53 years. He held the gavel when the House passed the original Medicare legislation. He shepherded the landmark Clean Air Act into law. He championed the Endangered Species Act. He has fought for health care, for workers' rights and for the people of his beloved Michigan. He has done all of this--all of this amazing work--with wit, passion, and an unshakeable belief in the American spirit. As he recently said in an interview, ``Eighty-two years ago, I hit the jackpot. I was born in the United States of America. That's the greatest thing that ever happened to me.'' And on a personal note, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank John and his wife Debbie for their kindness and friendship to my wife Lisa and me. They have enriched our lives in so many ways, and we will be forever grateful. So congratulations, John Dingell. Here's to another 53 years of service to America.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Reclaiming my time, I would say to my friend that the Congressional Budget Office study report is disputed by many, many on the House Appropriations Committee and many on the Senate Appropriations Committee. In fact, Mark Zandi who is a conservative economist and former adviser to John McCain, your Presidential candidate in the last go-around, projected that this stimulus package would create 4 million jobs by the end of 2010 and it will provide a vital boost to this lagging economy. The bottom line is, I think it is obvious that the kind of investments that are in this package, infrastructure, green jobs, investments in education, investments in Food Stamps and investments in medical technology, investments in making sure that we have more nurses and more primary care doctors, all of those things create more jobs and will stimulate the economy. We can debate reports all we want, but those of us who have been here for awhile know that when you invest in things like infrastructure, you create jobs back home. That is what we are doing here. There are expedited provisions here to make sure that the money gets out quickly. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield at this point 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I have great respect for the previous speaker, who I had the pleasure of serving with on the Rules Committee for many years, but what we seem to be hearing over and over from the other side is they care about job loss, but. They care about the survival of small businesses, but. They care about the fact that hunger is a growing problem in America, but. They care about the infrastructure, but. Well, ``but'' nothing. The time has come, because things are so bad, and we don't have to argue about how we got here, but the reality is I think there is a consensus that we are in a serious economic meltdown right now and that in fact we need to do something. We need to do something big and bold. We need to try to jump-start this economy. This may not be all that needs to be done, quite frankly, but the fact is, if you care about infrastructure, you need to support a bill that spends and invests in infrastructure. If you care about job losses in this country, then you have got to do something other than just talk about it, and invest in programs that will help create more jobs. If you care about the fact that hunger is a growing problem in the United States of America, which is shameful, then you need to do something that will not only help feed hungry people, but stimulate the economy. And this bill does that, and more. So there are lots of things in this bill that I think will stimulate this economy. We could all find something that we don't like. But the fact of the matter is, if everybody had the opportunity to write this bill, there would be 435 different bills. This bill I think represents the best judgment of the new President of the United States, working with the Democratic leadership and working with Members in this House, and I think it deserves support. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's history lesson about Ronald Reagan and about what happened in 1981. I wasn't here in 1981. I was a senior in college, but I appreciate the gentleman's giving me that history lesson. But when he talks about the strong track record of the Republicans, I beg to differ. I think the American people differ. That's what the outcome of this election was about. People do not want more of the same. They're tired of the Republican track record. They want to go in a very different direction. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, let me begin by thanking Chairmen Obey, Rangel, Waxman, Oberstar, Miller, Spratt and Gordon for their incredible work on this package, and I want to thank their staffs. I also want to thank Rosa DeLauro for championing the antihunger provisions in this package, which I think are so important, not only in terms of our moral obligation to help people in this country who don't have enough to eat, but it also helps stimulate the economy. I also am grateful to Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and to Speaker Nancy Pelosi for their leadership in trying to put a good and solid reinvestment recovery package together. Madam Speaker, we are facing extremely tough times. This economy is in the worst shape since the Great Depression. Millions and millions of people have lost their jobs and millions more will lose their jobs unless this Congress, working with this President, takes decisive action. We are not talking about statistics, we are talking about people. We are talking about families, and they are hurting. There is not a single one of us in this chamber who, when we go home, do not encounter people who have lost their jobs or who are on the verge of losing their jobs. People are struggling, people are fearful. Small businesses are struggling. They are asking for our help. Cities and towns and States are facing the worst financial crisis in decades, and they are looking for help. The underlying bill before us provides a first step in helping remedy this terrible situation. John F. Kennedy liked to say that a rising tide lifts all boats. Well, that is what we are trying to do with this package. We are trying to stimulate the economy. We are trying to make sure that everybody, not just the few who are rich, but everybody, those who are in the middle class and those who are poor, gets the help that they deserve. My colleague talked about a substitute that the Republicans will offer. Well, that's great, and they will have an opportunity to debate and make their substitute and let the votes fall where they may. But the fact of the matter is that I personally believe that their approach, which I referred to as the same old same old, will not prevail. I hope it doesn't prevail. That's what this election was about. People do not want more of the same. They want a different direction. Quite frankly, this stimulus package that we debated today should have been what President Bush asked for a year ago. We are late in coming to rescue so many families across this country. I know it's fashionable on the other side to talk about tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts. The bill that President Obama and the Democratic leadership are putting together, 95 percent of American taxpayers get a break. But I should tell my colleagues that for every dollar of direct spending, the economy gets $1.50 in stimulus. Every dollar of tax cut produces 75 cents in economic stimulus. So I do think, while we can make the argument that tax cuts are important, investment in our infrastructure, investment in our schools, investment in our economy, is incredibly important. People have said, well, there is no way we can get all this money out. I should point out in this bill there are strict accountability measures to ensure that highways and transit funds get out of the door quickly to create jobs. It requires States to obligate 50 percent of the highway and transit funding within 180 days, or the Transportation Department can reclaim some of the States' highway and transportation funding in the bill. So there are incentives to get this money out quickly to help stimulate this economy. Finally, Madam Speaker, let me say that this really is a defining moment. People are looking to their government for help. They are looking for us to take big, bold steps. They are looking at us the same way that people looked at Franklin Roosevelt during the Great Depression to come and try to put together a package to help get people back to work. Well, that's what we're trying to do here. Madam Speaker, I will say this, I am proud to be on the floor today debating this rule which will pave the way for a debate on this Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act, because it shows that this government, once again, has a conscience. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman another 30 seconds.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 88 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McGOVERN. Reclaiming my time, the fact of the matter is the economic downturn is no longer subject to debate. In the last 4 months, the country has lost 2 million jobs and is expected to lose another 3 to 5 million in the next year. This recovery package represents a crucial first step forward in a concerted effort to not only save but create millions of more jobs in this country. This is a defining moment for every single person in this Chamber. We need to act. We need to move forward with something big and bold, and not the same old, same old. And bipartisanship, Madam Speaker, doesn't mean that Democrats should capitulate to every request that the Republicans make. Bipartisanship doesn't mean that we should embrace policies that have failed in the past, embracing the same old, same old. Chairman Obey was before the House Rules Committee last night and talked about the Republican amendments that he accepted during debate on this package in the Appropriations Committee. This is not everything I would like, Madam Speaker. Quite frankly, I think the package needs to be bigger. But this represents, I think, the best judgment of our new President, working with his advisers, and I think this package is a crucial first step forward in trying to bring this economy back from where it is today. This is a crucial step in trying to create millions of more jobs to put people back to work to try to stimulate this economy to get things moving again.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am all for bipartisanship, but I find it curious that the gentleman is preaching bipartisanship when this morning, and I read from Politico, there is a story that says this morning House minority leader John Boehner went for the jugular, urging his members to oppose the economic centerpiece of Obama's first term just hours before the President paid the Republicans the compliment of coming to the Capitol for a private meeting, even before he did the same for House Democrats. I will yield to the gentleman in just a second. It seems to me if we want to be bipartisan, then everybody should reserve judgment until all the facts are on the table. I would like to think that the House minority leader would have reserved his judgment on the overall package until he and the Republican Members of this House had an opportunity to hear the new President out. That did not happen.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 88 provides for general debate on H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. I would like to think this rule is not controversial because it is only about general debate, but it will lead the way to an important debate on the underlying legislation, H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Madam Speaker, George W. Bush left this country with an economy much worse off than the one he inherited from the Clinton administration. Eight years after being handed record budget surpluses, President Bush passed on to President Obama an economy that has record budget deficits and is in worse shape since the Great Depression. Unemployment is rising. Fifty-five thousand more jobs were lost yesterday alone. Wages are stagnating. And work hours are being cut back. People are having trouble making ends meet, including putting food on the table. And that is where this recovery package steps in. The provisions that make up the American Recovery and Reinvestment Package range from investments in infrastructure and green technology to extending unemployment for workers who have exhausted their benefits. We provide aid to struggling State governments and tax cuts for low and middle- income families and small businesses. These are all good investments that we hope will help reinvigorate our economy. And I look forward to voting for them tomorrow. Madam Speaker, some of the most important parts of this package, in my opinion, are the antihunger provisions that will not only stimulate the economy, but will also help combat hunger in this country. This recovery package includes $20 billion for the Food Stamp program, $200 million for elderly nutrition services, including Meals on Wheels and Congregate Meals, $726 million to increase the number of States that provide free healthy dinners to children in need, $150 million to purchase commodities for food banks to refill emptying shelves, and $100 million to improve State management information systems for the WIC program. Madam Speaker, food stamp increases will reach about 14 million low- income households as soon as 25 days after enactment. About 90 percent of all food stamp households have income below the poverty line. In other words, these are benefits that are timely and they are targeted. It is important to note that every dollar in food stamps that a low- income family receives enables that family to spend an additional dollar on food or other items. And don't just take my word for it. Leading conservative economists support inclusion of these benefits in the recovery package. Former Reagan economic adviser Martin Feldstein has said that a temporary food stamp increase would place resources in the pockets of people with a high propensity to spend quickly, rather than save, the limited income that they have. Mark Zandi, a former economic adviser to the McCain campaign, says that a temporary increase in food stamp benefits gives the best ``bang for buck.'' Specifically, he estimates that such an increase would generate $1.73 in increased economic activity for each $1 in cost. Madam Speaker, increasing food stamps is not charity. It is stimulus. It is not a handout or a give-away. But investments in antihunger programs do fulfill our moral commitment to make sure our fellow citizens have enough to eat. More than 36 million Americans went hungry in 2007, before the economy took this drastic spike downward. Yet the last stimulus plan signed into law didn't include increases for food stamps or any kind of antihunger programs. The fact that hunger remains a problem in America should make every single Member in this Chamber feel ashamed. H.R. 1 gives us a chance to begin to solve this problem and to prevent many more American families from slipping into hunger. Madam Speaker, as I said at the outset, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act includes large investments in our infrastructure to help rebuild our roads and our bridges, to help with our water and sewer plants, to help State and local governments deal with the financial burdens and crises they are currently faced with. This is a bill that will help put people back to work and that will create millions of jobs that will hopefully stimulate this economy. The one thing I do know, Madam Speaker, is that doing nothing is not an option. That is what has been happening in the previous administration. They ignored this problem for far too long. And their response when the probably became a huge problem was grossly inadequate. So, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support this package. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend from California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 88.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged concurrent resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank my colleague for yielding to me, and I welcome her to the Rules Committee. This is going to be an exciting year. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. This is a great day, this is an important day, because at long last we have a Congress and a President of the United States who not only believes in equal pay for equal work, but are willing to stand up and fight for equal pay for equal work. Mr. Speaker, last year, we passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. We sent it to the United States Senate, and the Republicans in the United States Senate led a filibuster to block progress on this bill. And if we could overcome that filibuster, we have got a President of the United States named George Bush who said he would veto the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Well, times have changed. We passed the bill again here in the House by a large margin, the Senate has passed it, and we are now accepting the Senate version. My colleague from Florida says, well, what harm is it to open all this up again? The harm is, if you add or change this bill that we are voting on today, it will go back to the United States Senate; it will delay this important piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, discrimination is wrong in any form, discrimination in the workplace. Paying a woman less than a man for equal work is wrong. It is something that is intolerable. And the important thing about this bill is it will move us closer to equality in the workforce. We still have a long way to go. Mr. Speaker, on average, women earn just 78 cents for every dollar earned by a man. The Institute of Women's Policy Research has found that this wage disparity costs women anywhere from $400,000 to $2 million in lost wages over a lifetime. And equal pay, Mr. Speaker, is not simply a women's issue; it is a family issue. People should be paid for the quality of their work. They should not be discriminated against because of their gender. This vote is about ending discrimination. It is not about process, it is not about anything else. It is about whether at long last the United States Congress and the President of the United States are going to stand up for equal pay for equal work, and I think that this is an important step in the right direction. I want to congratulate George Miller, the chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, as well as Rob Andrews, my colleague, for his incredible work on this. But we have waited long enough. George Bush and the Republicans have thrown enough roadblocks in our way. We have removed them. We are moving forward. We are moving toward equality. We are moving to end discrimination. And I am proud to stand on the floor and support the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time.