Press Releases

Opening Statement of U.S. Representative James P. McGovern

H. Res. 355, Rule for Consideration of H.R. 2560

July 19, 2011

I thank the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Woodall, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks and I yield myself 5 minutes.

M. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this closed rule and in even stronger opposition to the underlying bill.

This is a closed rule.

My friend from Georgia, Mr. Woodall, was on the floor last week telling us how -excited- he was as we debated a modified open rule for a flood insurance bill. My friend talked about how proud he was of the open process that allowed members to offer germane amendments to the bill.

But here we are today considering legislation that would fundamentally transform the United States economy, gut many of the programs like Social Security and Medicare that millions of Americans rely upon, and make radical changes to the Constitution, and the Republican Majority of the Rules Committee has brought it to the floor under a closed rule.

No hearings. No witnesses. No mark-ups. This bill was cobbled together last Friday night and rushed to the floor just a few days later. I wonder if my friend from Georgia is just as excited about this process. Because I'm sure not.

Last night in the Rules Committee, I offered my friends on the other side of the aisle the opportunity to put their votes where their rhetoric is and support an open rule. They chose to vote ‘no.'

As for the underlying legislation, M. Speaker, I can't quite figure out if this is a meaningless exercise in political theater or an actual expression of Republican values. And frankly, I can't figure out which is worse.

If it's theater, it would get lousy reviews.

Both the White House and the Senate have made it very clear that they have no interest in supporting this bill. It's not going anywhere. Maybe it's just a rotten piece of red meat that the Republican Leadership is throwing to their right-wing base in anticipation of an actual agreement to raise the debt ceiling and cut the deficit.

If so, it's a complete waste of this body's time.

But if the Republican Leadership means what they say - that they would like this bill to become the law of the land - it's a frightening prospect.

This legislation would result in staggering cuts to programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Pell Grants, medical research and infrastructure - all while protecting tax cuts for the very wealthiest Americans and corporations.

The bill would require us to cut federal spending as a percentage of GDP to a level not seen since 1965. And we had a very interesting discussion in the Rules Committee last night about the significance of that date.

One of my Republican colleagues noted that 1965 was a time when we enacted some of our QUOTE -So-called Anti-Poverty programs.- And she's exactly right, M. Speaker.

Apparently the Republican Leadership would like to take America back to a time before Medicare. Before Medicaid. Before food stamps and school lunches. Before Meals on Wheels and Head Start and Pell Grants.

If that's their vision for America, M. Speaker, they should have the guts to stand on this floor and say so. But it's not my vision. It's not the vision of the people I represent in Massachusetts. It's not the vision of the American people, who believe that in the richest society in the history of the world, we have an obligation to make sure that the most vulnerable among us don't fall through the cracks.

At the same time, this bill would go out of its way - to enshrine in the Constitution of the United States - to protect tax cuts and loopholes for the richest 1% of Americans. Under this bill, Congress would need a mere majority to slash Medicare, but would need a super-majority to close a loophole that gives preferential treatment to owners of corporate jets.

Talk about picking winners and losers, M. Speaker.

In the ongoing budget negotiations, the Republican Leadership of this House have said that they will absolutely not consider raising any revenue to address the deficit and debt.

But according to news reports, they're willing to force seniors receiving Medicare home health care to fork over new co-pays. So if an elderly woman in Worcester with diabetes has to pay more for a visiting nurse, the Republicans say: so be it. But heaven forbid that oil companies making billions of dollars in profit have to pay their fair share.

Maybe they'll call those new co- pays -user fees- so that Grover Norquist and the Club for Growth will give them a pass. But tell the woman in Worcester who will be forced to go into a nursing home that her taxes didn't go up.

M. Speaker, this is an awful bill brought to the floor under an awful process. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject this cynical effort and to get back to work and meaningfully address the budget issues facing this nation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Closing Statement of U.S. Representative James P. McGovern

H. Res. 355, Rule for Consideration of H.R. 2560

July 19, 2011

M. Speaker, once again, I stand in strong opposition to this closed rule and to the underlying bill.

It's time for a ‘grown-up moment' M. Speaker. It's time for the members of this House - Republican and Democrat - to come together to address the looming crisis over the debt limit.

We are exactly two weeks - two weeks - away from the possibility of the United States defaulting on its obligations - of not paying its bills. That is not an acceptable outcome.

I know there are some on the other side of the aisle - in fact, I talked to one just this morning - who will not vote for ANYTHING that raises the debt ceiling. That's unfortunate. Default would result in collapsing markets and sky-rocketing interest rates. It would deal a devastating blow to the full-faith-and-credit of the United States. It would throw even more Americans out of work.

The bill before us does nothing - nothing - to prevent that outcome. Slashing Medicare and Social Security while protecting tax cuts for the wealthy is not a responsible solution. Radically altering the Constitution is not a responsible solution.

We need to focus on jobs. And innovation plus infrastructure plus education equals jobs. This bill would slash the investments we need to put people back to work and to grow our economy.

I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and the underlying legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.