Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman who is the ranking member on our Budget Committee, Mr. Spratt.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca).

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

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this bill will do two very important things. First, it will reinstate the pay-as-you-go requirement that was in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act that expired in 2002. The bill will restore the PAYGO provision and extend it through the year 2011. Mr. Speaker, the budget process may be complicated, but one thing is clear: We should be required to pay for new spending and tax breaks instead of running the highest deficits in the history of our country. The message is simple: If you want more tax breaks for millionaires, then pay for them. Our constituents have to take responsibility for their personal spending and their personal debt. So should we. In addition, this bill will repeal rule XXVII, the House rule that blocks a direct vote on increasing the Federal debt limit, thereby shielding Members of this House from any responsibility for the massive rise in the debt ceiling. Under this rule, simply passing the budget effectively triggers an automatic increase in the debt ceiling. Members never have to get their hands dirty or explain to their constituents why our national debt continues to skyrocket to numbers that are so massive that they are almost impossible to comprehend. They never have to take a position or provide a reason. They can just pretend that it happened without any way to stop it. And to make this even worse, it only happens in the House. The Senate will still vote for the debt limit increase directly. This Republican budget resolution calls for yet another increase in the debt limit by $653 billion, bringing our total debt limit to $9.6 trillion. Democrats believe that we should repeal House rule XXVII and require a straight up-or-down vote on raising the Federal debt limit. I say to my colleagues, take responsibility. Show some backbone. Have some courage and explain to the American people why you are driving this country into debt. I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, just for clarification, the so-called Gephardt rule expired, and then it was reinstated by the Republican majority; so it is now the Hastert rule.

Mr. McGOVERN. No, I would not object.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member on the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to just respond to the gentleman. When President Bush came to office, we had a debt of $5.6 trillion. By the end of this year, it will be over $9 trillion. By the end of his term, he will have doubled it. So you have done such a wonderful job driving this country into deep debt that we are going to have to pass it on to our children and our grandchildren. Pay as you go is what we are saying over here. You are the ones who are behaving fiscally irresponsibly. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. 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 legislation to restore fiscal responsibility to the congressional budget process. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 seconds to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott). (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am listening to my very good friend from Florida talk about the signing ceremony at the White House today where the President is supposedly celebrating his tax bill. I would argue that what they are celebrating is increased debt on the American people. I don't think that is anything to celebrate over. I want to get back to process here for a minute, if I can. Democrats and Republicans differ on a whole range of issues, and we can argue that appropriately when the full budget comes before the House. But what is troublesome is the fact that we don't know what you are going to bring to the floor later today, and I have to believe that if the roles were reversed here and the Democrats were in control of the Congress and we were to rush a budget to the floor today without you having seen it, that you wouldn't be too happy either, that you would think that is not an appropriate way to do business. This is May 17. We have been here 127 days this year, and we have only been in session 41 of those 127 days. To argue that we don't have the time or that we need to rush to get this budget passed or we don't have the time to deliberate, to even be able to read what is actually in the bill coming before us, I just think is hard to defend. Also in this budget, unless it changes, but I am assuming it will be similar to the last budget, is that when we pass this plan, there will be an automatic passage of a $653 debt limit increase by the House. We would not have a separate debate or a separate vote on that. When I go home and people want to know why aren't we doing more to control the spending, why aren't we doing more to control the debt, why don't you have a debate on the debt limit, my answer has to be, well, the issue of the debt limit is hidden in a budget. It is automatic. We don't even get a chance to vote up or down on something like that. That is an important issue, I would think, that even my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would agree with. So putting the policy disagreements aside for one moment, the main objection to this martial law rule is the process, a process that doesn't even allow Members of both parties to have the opportunity to review what is in it. And deliberation is important, I would say to my friend from Florida. It is important that we debate issues seriously, that we debate important issues seriously, and not just the trivial ones. And this is important. Increasing the debt limit, the implications of this budget, this is important, and we should have that opportunity. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt). (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam), my very good friend, 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 martial law rule and in opposition to the outrageous process that continues to plague this House. Apparently the Republican leadership has twisted enough arms and broken enough legs to try to ram through their mystery budget package. And I call it a mystery because, aside from a select few chosen by the leadership, no one has actually seen this budget. We are not talking about naming a post office here, Mr. Speaker, or congratulating a sports team. What we are talking about is the budget priorities that will affect every single American on issues like health care, education, veterans care, environmental protection, national defense, and it goes on and on and on. So what is in this thing that we are going to see sometime later today? If it is anything like the last version of the budget, which came up a few weeks ago that was pulled, it is probably full of misplaced priorities, broken promises, and empty rhetoric. If it is anything like the last version, it will bankrupt our children and our grandchildren at the expense of the very wealthy. If it is anything like the last version, it will be an assault on our veterans. And if it is anything like the last version, it slashes critical programs in the areas of education, job training, environmental protection and conservation funding, public health programs, medical research, and social services. But, Mr. Speaker, we do not really know what is in this budget because the leadership of this House would prefer us not to know. They would prefer the American people not to know. To make a bad situation even worse, we have before us a martial law rule that allows the leadership to once again ignore the rules of the House and the procedures and the traditions of this House. Martial law is no way to run a democracy. Mr. Speaker, no matter what your ideology, no matter what your party affiliation, no matter what you believe about what the budget priorities of this Nation should be, every single Member of this House should have the opportunity to review a bill of this magnitude before voting on it. Mr. Speaker, we really are in the Land of Oz here with the leadership saying, pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. We know somebody is back there, and we know they are putting together a budget, in my opinion probably a lousy budget, but we really do not want anyone to know the truth. We do not want anyone to know the facts. Mr. Speaker, those across this country who are watching these proceedings on their television must be wondering how and why the House of Representatives, the greatest deliberative body in the world, could be bringing a budget to the House floor without allowing all Members, even supporters and those who probably will oppose this bill, the opportunity to be able to look at it, to be able to understand what the implications are. But the fact is this much talked about budget, this much talked about but rarely seen budget, will be working its way to the House floor sometime today. I hope the Members will have an opportunity to look at the budget. They are not going to be given enough time, but I hope they will be given some time to see what it is before we begin the debate. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Florida for his comments. And we should be the greatest deliberative body in the world. We should be the greatest legislative body in the world. But to be the greatest legislative body in the world, I think, requires some deliberation. And that is why so many of us have strong objections to this martial law rule. We are faced with some very serious challenges in this country. The fiscal irresponsibility and misplaced priorities, I think, of the last several Congresses and by this administration have resulted in an incredible debt that I think is probably the biggest debt that this country has ever seen in our history. We are concerned about whether our veterans are going to be treated with the respect that they not only deserve, but they have earned. We are worried about whether or not these unfunded mandates that are contained in No Child Left Behind will get adequate funding. We are worried about health care, over 43 million Americans without health care in this country. We are worried about environmental protection and job creation and so many other things. We are worried about the high cost of energy and whether or not we are going to invest appropriately in alternative forms of energy. But the gentleman is correct that what we are debating right now is not the budget, but the process under which that budget will be considered. And it just strikes me and a lot of other people on this side somewhat astounding that a bill of this magnitude would be brought to the floor under this proceeding. The gentleman says that the budget has been available, that people know what is in the budget. Well, we know what was in the last budget that was brought before the House floor and that it was pulled when we did not have the votes. The question is what is new in the budget brought forward today? I assume that there are going to be some changes. If there are no changes, then I can understand the gentleman's point about this is not that big of a deal. But my understanding is that there are changes; that as we speak right now, there are back-room deals being negotiated and secret negotiations going on that most Members of this House, Republican and Democrat, have no clue about its content. So this is a very, very serious matter. I do not think it is unreasonable to demand that every Member of this Chamber, Democrat and Republican alike, should be given the opportunity and the courtesy to be able to know what they are voting on, to know the implications of what they are voting on before this moves forward. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida is absolutely correct when he says that this budget is about choices. And there are clear differences between what Democrats believe are the right choices and what Republicans believe. But the vote we are going to have on this martial law rule is also about choices, and the choice is, should Members of Congress, Republicans and Democrats, be afforded the opportunity to know what they are voting on, to be able to see what is in the budget that they are going to bring to the floor later today? I do not think that that is unreasonable. I mean, even if you disagree with me and people on the Democratic side on all of the budgetary issues, I mean, do you not think that it is reasonable to require that Members should be able to know what is going to be in your budget, what changes you are going to make? I mean, as I said before, when you vote for your budget, it is an automatic increase in the debt ceiling. I mean, what else is going to be put in there that we are not going to know about until when it is on the floor? Mr. Speaker, I think the process is indefensible. We can argue the policy later, but the process is indefensible. We need to do much better. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. McGOVERN. Well, I would say to the gentleman, I define this as a martial law rule because what it is doing is enabling the leadership of this House to bring a budget to the floor that nobody has seen. And I don't think that is democratic. I don't think that is respectful of the deliberative process here in this House. I don't think that that is something, if the shoes were on a different foot, the gentleman would want to tolerate. And I hope that, given the opportunity to be able to take control of this House, that we can demonstrate a different standard on some of this stuff. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind). (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would just say to the gentleman from New Jersey and some of the previous speakers that if these Republican policies are so wonderful, and if it is so obvious that they work, then why have you been struggling for months trying to get a budget together? Why are we here debating a martial law rule to bring up a budget that nobody has seen yet because you are still trying to work out deals within your own party, because you do not have the votes within your own party to pass this? This goes back to the point I had made at the very beginning. We can argue and argue about the policy, and that is totally appropriate. But how do you defend this process? I mean, how do you defend this process? And I think that that is a question that is yet to be answered.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from Florida 20 seconds.