Adopting the Rules of the House of Representatives for the 118th Congress

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, first, let me congratulate our incredible new House Democratic leadership team: Hakeem Jeffries, Katherine Clark, and Pete Aguilar. It is a dawn of a new day here in Congress, as a new generation takes on the solemn responsibility of leadership.

Leader Jeffries has been tireless in his work to put people over politics. His steady leadership as chair of our Democratic Caucus, uniting our Members, harnessing their talent and diversity, and fighting tirelessly to make life better for American people is a source of inspiration for me and so many others.

It is also a privilege to be here with my good friend Tom Cole, someone who I respect greatly and who I know greatly respects this institution. We sit on opposite ends of the dais, but I admire Mr. Cole's leadership and the example he sets. Even when we don't see eye to eye, I am proud of our work to build an atmosphere of respectful dialogue on the Rules Committee.

We have done so not just among our Members but among our hardworking staff, and I thank our minority and majority staff, led by Don Sisson and Kelly Dixon, for all of their hard work.

I look forward to working with Mr. Cole and his team this Congress to continue our collaboration on issues of shared concern.

Mr. Speaker, as Leader Jeffries put it so succinctly this weekend, our Republican friends campaigned on the claim that they would fight against inflation and fight for the American people. Instead, all they have done is come to Washington and fight with each other.

In fact, what has become crystal clear over the past few days is the extent to which the Republican Party has been hijacked by an extremist MAGA faction, a faction not interested in governing but in their own egos, a faction not interested in compromise but in their own power, a faction not interested in putting people over politics but instead interested in putting their own political ambition over the people we serve.

Now here we are, nearly a week later, considering their deeply flawed rules package, the first legislation on the floor by this new majority, and they are using it to gut the Office of Congressional Ethics, attack women's access to abortion, make it easier for big oil companies to pollute, and interfere in ongoing criminal investigations into President Trump.

They are making it easier for billionaires and big corporations to avoid paying their taxes. Is that part of their contract with America? Is that their big plan to help everyday people? Because most people who read this package would think it must be a joke.

What I am concerned about is not just what is written down here. I am concerned by the backroom deals that Speaker McCarthy made with the Freedom Caucus in exchange for their votes. Like Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mace said just this weekend: ``We don't have any idea what promises were made.''

This is unconscionable. We are only 1 week into this, and this is how they are running this place.

There is a report out by Punchbowl News, and let me read it. It said: ``There is also a secret 3-page addendum that McCarthy and his allies hashed out during several days of grueling negotiations with the House Freedom Caucus. This pact includes the most controversial concessions McCarthy made in order to become Speaker--three seats on the Rules Committee for conservatives, freezing spending at FY 2022 levels, a debt ceiling strategy, coveted committee assignments, and more.'' Is that what the Majority Leader meant when he talked about a new day and transparency?

These rules are not a serious attempt at governing. They are essentially a ransom note to America from the extreme right. The same Members of Congress who held this body hostage last week are the ones who ran interference for the January 6 insurrectionists, who tried to overturn a free and fair election.

Even the new Speaker of the House voted to overturn the 2020 elections. We couldn't even get a public acknowledgment from him on the 2-year anniversary of that horrific day, not even a tweet.

It is clear that Republicans welcomed the election deniers into their ranks with open arms, and now they are reaping what they have sown. The insurrectionists are in charge.

I am reminded of the words of President Kennedy: ``In the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside.''

The American people get it. They rejected extremism in the last two elections. That is why they picked Joe Biden, and that is why the red wave turned into a pink splash.

My Republican friends still aren't listening, and in fact, they are still empowering the extremists. Don't take my word for it. Let's go through their rules package.

They are giving a single Member the ability to remove the Speaker at any time, letting a small, far-right faction hold their leadership hostage.

They are trying to shut down criminal investigations into the former President's wrongdoing.

They are making it easier to slash taxes on billionaire corporations while dismantling the social safety net.

They are giving committee chairs unbalanced discretion over which witnesses can testify; rejecting pandemic safety procedures like remote voting; trying to force an end to congressional staff unionization; and the icing on the cake, a new subcommittee to push QAnon conspiracies and launch fake investigations into nonexistent scandals. What is next, a rule requiring we all wear tinfoil hats?

This package is disrespectful, not just to this institution, but to the people who sent us here to govern.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a Congressional Budget Office report from today titled: ``Estimated Budgetary Effects of H.R. 23, the Family and Small Business Taxpayer Protection Act.'' This nonpartisan report says that the GOP's IRS funding bill will add $114 billion to the national debt, so when people talk about taking steps to reduce the national debt, I am not sure what they are talking about. [From the Congressional Budget Office, January 9, 2023] Estimated Budgetary Effects of H.R. 23, the Family and Small Business Taxpayer Protection Act

Summary: The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 establishes budget-reporting and enforcement procedures for legislation affecting direct spending or revenues. The net changes in outlays and revenues that are subject to those procedures are shown above.

The Congressional Budget Office adheres to laws and Congressional rules concerning the federal budget and to a set of principles (called the Scorekeeping Guidelines) created by the Congress. Those principles guide how the House and Senate Budget Committees, the Congressional Budget Office, and the Office of Management and Budget attribute budgetary effects to legislation, with the goal of promoting consistent treatment of estimated effects among those agencies. (For more information on those guidelines, see Congressional Budget Office, CBO Explains Budgetary Scorekeeping Guidelines, January 2021, www.cbo.gov/ publication/56507.)

When a provision in an authorization bill provides funding for administrative or program management activities, such as when the IRS receives additional funding for administrative activities, spending of those amounts can result in increases in receipts. Guideline 14, however, directs scorekeepers to exclude those increases when estimating the budgetary effects of proposals that would provide additional mandatory funding for such activities.

Guideline 14 was adopted in part to avert cases in which possible, but uncertain, receipts were used to offset near- term increases in spending resulting from the same bill. That guideline is asymmetrical, however. That is, even though increased receipts cannot be credited to a bill that would increase administrative funding, estimated receipt losses that might result from a decrease in such funding are included in the estimated budgetary effects.

H.R. 23 would rescind unobligated funds provided by paragraphs (1)(A)(ii), (1)(A)(iii), (1)(B), (2), (3), (4), and (5) of section 10301 of Public Law 117-169. CBO estimates that the bill would decrease outlays by $71 billion and decrease receipts by $186 billion over the 2023-2032 period. Both of those effects are included in accordance with Guideline 14.

ESTIMATED BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF H.R. 23, THE FAMILY AND SMALL BUSINESS TAXPAYER PROTECTION ACT, AS POSTED ON THE WEBSITE OF THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON JANUARY 9, 2023 AS AN ITEM THAT MAY BE CONSIDERED PURSUANT TO A RULE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ By fiscal year, millions of dollars-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2023-2027 2023-2032 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Decreases (-) in Direct Spending Total Changes in Direct Spending Budget Authority................ -71,473 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -71,473 -71,473 Outlays......................... -2,359 -2,835 -4,124 -5,589 -7,252 -9,249 -11,423 -14,027 -14,605 0 -22,159 -71,463 Decreases (-) in Revenues Total Changes in Revenues........... -1,645 -6,186 -12,506 -17,394 -21,574 -25,416 -28,983 -31,441 -31,879 -8,814 -59,305 -185,838 Net Increase or Decrease (-) in the Deficit From Changes in Direct Spending and Revenues Net Effect on the Deficit........... -714 3,351 8,382 11,805 14,322 16,167 17,560 17,414 17,274 8,814 37,146 114,375 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Source: The Congressional Budget Office. The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 establishes budget-reporting and enforcement procedures for legislation affecting direct spending or revenues. The net changes in outlays and revenues

that are subject to those procedures are shown above. The Congressional Budget Office adheres to laws and Congressional rules concerning the federal budget and to a set of principles (called the Scorekeeping Guidelines) created by the Congress.

Those principles guide how the House and Senate Budget Committees, the Congressional Budget Office, and the Office of Management and Budget attribute budgetary effects to legislation, with

the goal of promoting consistent treatment of estimated effects among those agencies. (For more information on those guidelines, see Congressional Budget Office, CBO Explains Budgetary

Scorekeeping Guidelines, January 2021, www.cbo.gov/publicalion/56507.) When a provision in an authorization bill provides funding for administrative or program management activities, such as when the IRS receives additional funding for administrative activities,

spending of those amounts can result in increases in receipts. Guideline 14, however, directs scorekeepers to exclude those increases when estimating the budgetary effects of proposals that

would provide additional mandatory funding for such activities. Guideline 14 was adopted in part to avert cases in which possible, but uncertain, receipts were used to offset near-term increases in spending resulting from the same bill. That guideline is

asymmetrical, however. That is, even though increased receipts cannot be credited to a bill that would increase administrative funding, estimated receipt losses that might result from a

decrease in such funding are included in the estimated budgetary effects. H.R. 23 would rescind unobligated funds provided by paragraphs (1)(A)(ii), (1)(A)(iii), (1)(B), (2), (3), (4), and (5) of section 10301 of Public Law 117-169. CBO estimates that the bill would

decrease outlays by $71 billion and decrease receipts by $186 billion over the 2023-2032 period. Both of those effects are included in accordance with Guideline 14.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up the Women's Health Protection Act.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Chu) to discuss our proposal.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. We heard a lot about inflation, but none of the first 12 bills that my Republican friends are bringing up have anything to do with inflation or mention inflation.

DeGette).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just remind my friends that over a million Americans died of COVID, including a Member-elect who was supposed to be sworn in in the last Congress. These remote procedures undoubtedly saved lives of Members and staff here in this Chamber. So, please, let's not diminish what the point of all that was about.

Jayapal).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Lee).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is taking credit for the 72- hour rule, which we created in our rules package, but thank you very much.

Clark), the Democrat whip.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I remind my friend that the first bill they are doing is going to add $114 billion to the deficit. Enough.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman mentioned the 72-hour rule. Once again, I will say: You are welcome. Then she talked about this being the most open and transparent rule ever. Maybe the gentlewoman can share with us the secret 3-page addendum that we are reading about, because none of us have seen it. So much for transparency. I guess she is not going to share that with us.

Norton).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, again, for mentioning the 72-hour rule which has been mentioned many times. But I wrote it, and I thank the gentleman for keeping it.

But when I hear people talking about balanced budgets, give me a break. The first bill that my friends are bringing to the floor, according to CBO, adds $114 billion to the debt. We don't need any lectures from anybody on that side about balancing the budget. Give me a break.

Maybe the gentleman can, again, share with us the secret addendum that apparently was negotiated behind closed doors, so we actually know what agreements were made.

Four days and 15 votes, and there is only one change in the rules package going from five to be able to vacate the Chair to one. Well, there is a lot more to it. We all know that, but that is a big secret. So much for transparency.

Mr. TORRES of New York. Mr. Speaker, the so-called rules package proposed by House Republicans would perpetuate same disorder, division, and dysfunction that nearly devoured the Republican nominee for Speaker.

A single-Member threshold for filing a motion to vacate empowers extremism and rewards rabble-rousing. It would make the House so dysfunctional as to be ungovernable.

It would give the new Speaker only a Pyrrhic victory because a motion to vacate makes him arbitrarily removable at any moment, at the whim of any person, no matter how personal or petty the underlying grievance.

Simply put, this is no way to govern.

Moreover, House Republicans decry the weaponization of the Federal Government. Yet the Holman rule would enable the Federal Government to be weaponized against any Federal official who draws the wrath of the Republican majority.

The Holman rule would enable House Republicans to zero out funding for a criminal investigation into Donald Trump.

The new rules would defund the Office of Congressional Ethics.

The new rules would enable a Member being investigated by the FBI to investigate the investigators investigating him.

Mr. Speaker, so much for draining the swamp.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would just say to the gentleman that in the vast majority of cases we did comply with the 72-hour rule.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, following the vote on the previous question, Representative DeLauro will offer a motion to commit.

DeLauro) to discuss that proposal.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. DelBene).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, again, let me just ask, will anybody on the other side share with us the secret 3-page addendum that Speaker McCarthy negotiated with the Freedom Caucus so we can know what else was decided on, given away? I guess not.

Barragan).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for my friend, but really? I mean, come on.

What were the last 4 days about? I mean, again, days and days, and 15 roll call votes, and reporting by multiple sources tell us that there is this signed agreement with the House Freedom Caucus that deals with some of the most controversial concessions.

So, you know, I know it exists. It will come out sooner or later. Everybody is talking about transparency and openness. It would be nice if there was a little bit more transparency and openness from the other side.

Jackson Lee).

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rules and the rules package.

In particular, I support the Women's Health Protection Act so women seeking reproductive rights will not be hunted down by bounty hunters.

As well, I am opposed to this rule because of the creation of a potential committee that, in fact, threatens our safety, security, and freedom. It is an unprecedented attack on our Nation's law enforcement agencies, our justice system, and our intelligence community, all for the extreme MAGA Republican political activities.

This does nothing to solve the actual problems facing the American people and even includes a possibility of defunding police.

Finally, I am glad that the last Congress indicated that when a million Americans died, for continuity of government, we had proxy voting. They wanted to save lives.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose the underlying rules and the rules package. I ask my colleagues to join me in voting ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H. Res. 5, Adopting the Rules of the 118th Congress. Instead of building on the extraordinary work done by House Democrats in the 117th Congress, Republicans are choosing to lead off this term with legislation that attacks women's health freedoms, make it easier for companies to pollute without consequence, and hand out tax breaks to the wealthy and well connected.

This problematic Rules package is the product of non-transparent negotiations, backroom deals and promises that were made to appease the demands made by extremist members of the Republican Party to get them to vote or in some cases vote present for Speaker of the House.

Last week's catastrophic Speaker's election showed Americans how disorganized, chaotic, and inefficient the Republican leadership and Caucus can be.

Last week's chaos showed the American people how Republicans plan to govern for the next two years. This body will be ill managed, less transparent, slow moving, and will put forth legislation that will attack our freedoms and undermine our Nation's values.

Concessions made by Republican leadership last week will have devastating effects on this institution. The passage of this Rules package will pave the way for:

Any member to file a ``motion to vacate the chair,'' effectively holding the Speaker hostage;

Extreme right-wing members on key committees;

Putting an end to the possibility of Congressional staff unionization;

Reinstating the Holman Rules so Republicans can target civil servants who challenge them; and

Shut down criminal investigations into the previous president.

This problematic rule is creating more turmoil in the Republican ranks as members wrestle with the image of witnessing the Speaker being coerced into agreeing to give a small faction of the Republican Conference treats to appease them--including concessions to individual members for votes he needed to become Speaker.

It is not inconceivable that Republican members of the conference must show they are not being bullied into voting for this Rules bill.

The most problematic aspect of the rule is that it does not spell out what the Speaker agreed to give to his opponents so that the Congress and the American people know what the Speakership actually cost them.

This is the People's House--not the Republican or Democratic House-- any bargaining should be focused on the needs of the American people-- they must come first.

Throughout the last election cycle, Republicans campaigned on addressing inflation and lowering the cost of living for millions of Americans.

Ironically, the first bill they are introducing repays the wealthy donors that got them their majority through dark money contributions by making it easier for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans to cheat on their taxes.

We all may have varying beliefs about taxes, but we as Americans know that nothing in this life is free and that in order for our Nation to be a beacon of freedom we must have a strong defense, public assistance programs to help those in need, an education system that prepares young minds to lead, retirement programs that provided for our elder and disabled, and a healthcare system that cares for all in need of healthcare.

Passage of the rule will pave the way for Republicans to continue their assault on a woman's bodily autonomy and impede on medical decisions that should remain between medical professionals and their patient.

Although the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act does not criminalize abortion nationwide, make no mistake, that is their end goal, and the passage of this bill will get them one step closer to their sick idea of stripping all women of their rights.

There are concerns that language in the House Rules package would eliminate rules requiring spending offsets for bills that sell or transfer federal public lands and waters.

This will result in a loss of public access enjoyed by the 70 million American hunters and anglers that help support the $862 billion outdoor recreation economy in the United States. Additionally, giving away public assets with no return would be a loss for American taxpayers.

As a result, hunters and anglers are strongly opposed to this rule change, which would eliminate the necessity of spending offsets to sell or transfer public lands.

I urge all my colleagues to oppose this bill and see it for what it truly is:

An effort by Republicans to give tax breaks to the ultra-rich and the corporations who fund their campaigns, and

An effort to continue carrying out their distorted notion of America by decimating the programs set in place to help the Americans who depend on government assistance the most.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me continue what I was beginning in the last exchange.

At least one GOP office apparently has the much-fabled 3-page House rules addendum. ``We are taking a look at it . . . we're just going through it,'' Rep. Ken Calvert, a Steering Committee member, tells Axios. Asked if Members have received a copy: ``I don't know if everybody has.''

Again, don't come to the floor and talk about transparency and openness and a new day. This is backroom politics. That is what this is about, secret deals that no one is going to know anything about until it is too late.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the gentleman from Oklahoma how many more speakers he has?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, as well, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the last time House Republicans were in charge, they ended their time in power with a government shutdown. They controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House, and they shut the government down and walked away.

Upon taking power once again, they began with a legislative shutdown, a shutdown where a far-right fringe held the incoming Republican leadership hostage and got them to give away everything, including their own dignity.

What is clear from all of this is that the Republican Party no longer cares about governing. This rules package is exhibit number one.

The American people sent us here because they want us to put people over politics. Sadly, this rules package puts politics first, empowering the extremists who are only interested in their own power.

As I have said again and again, if this new majority wants to work together in good faith, my door is open. If this is their plan, they have clearly chosen to become a party that embraces election deniers and extremists, and Democrats will not go along to get along.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me say that I have had some harsh words for this rules package. Call it ``tough love.'' I care very deeply about this institution, about the work we do here, and the awesome responsibility of the decisions we make. I am glad that my friends kept the McGovern rule on the 72-hour and the McGovern rule that committees have to do hearings and markups before they come to the Rules Committee.

We weren't perfect, but overwhelmingly we kept our word.

This legislation does a great disservice to the people we represent, and it does not live up to the high standards that we should have for this institution. I believe that calling this House to a higher standard is the right thing to do.

But let me be clear that my criticism is reserved for the resolution we are considering and not for the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), whom I respect and admire as a person even when we strongly disagree, as we do today.

These rules are a giveaway to the far right, but this Congress need not be. If my Republican colleagues want to get anything done, it is clear that they are going to have to work together with Democrats to get things done.

Let's end the extremism and put people over politics to get stuff done.

People do not want government shutdowns.

People do not want to see us default on our financial obligations.

People want us to get stuff done and to keep the lights on.

The last two elections were a rejection of extremism. My friends predicted an overwhelmingly Republican majority in the last election, and instead, they got a pink splash because the American people, Democrats, Independents, and a lot of Republicans said: You are too extreme.

So put the extremism behind you. I urge the Speaker to work with Democrats and not just work with the small fringe group in the Republican Conference, but to work in a way to move the people's agenda forward.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution, a ``no'' on the previous question, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source