Providing for Consideration of H.R. 2560, Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of 2011

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. 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 markups. No nothing.

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.'' Every single Republican member on the Rules Committee voted "no.''

As for the underlying legislation, Mr. Speaker, I can't quite figure out if this is a meaningless exercise in political theater or an actual expression of Republican values. 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 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
"so-called anti-poverty programs.'' And she's exactly right, Mr. 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, Mr. Speaker, they should have the guts to stand on the 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 percent of Americans. Under this bill, Congress would need a mere majority to slash Medicare, but would need a supermajority to close a loophole that gives preferential treatment to owners of corporate jets. Talk about picking winners and losers, Mr. 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 the debt, but listen to this: According to news reports, they're willing to force seniors receiving Medicare home health care to fork over new copays. 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 and billions of dollars in profits have to pay their fair share. Maybe they'll call those new copays "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.

Mr. Speaker, this is an awful, awful bill brought to the floor under an awful, awful process. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject this cynical effort and get back to work and meaningfully address the budget issues facing this Nation. Time is running out. We need to get to work to seriously resolve this crisis. Reject this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. 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, Mr. Speaker. It's time for the Members of the House, Republican and Democrat, to come together to address the looming crisis over the debt limit. We are exactly 2 weeks away from the possibility of the United States defaulting on its obligations of not paying its bills. This is not an acceptable outcome.

I know that 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 skyrocketing 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 to prevent that outcome.

Slashing Medicare and Social Security while protecting tax cuts for the wealthy is not a responsible solution. I think the American people have made it clear in poll after poll after poll. They have said to my Republican colleagues, keep your hands off of Medicare and off of Social Security.

What my Republican colleagues are trying to do with this legislation is lower the standard of living for our senior citizens. They deserve a hell of a lot better. The fact of the matter is our senior citizens have built this country, they have worked hard to make this country what is today. They deserve better from this Congress. They should not have to pay to balance this budget because they did not cause this economic crisis.

It is just simply unfair to protect all this corporate welfare, all these tax loopholes to protect corporations with jets and to protect corporations so they don't have to pay taxes, and they can incorporate overseas in Bermuda or the Cayman Islands. It is just wrong. It is wrong to continue these subsidies to Big Oil that have made billions and billions and billions of dollars. Why aren't they paying their fair share?

And Mr. Speaker, it is just wrong to radically alter the Constitution of the United States of America. We need to focus on jobs, and innovation plus infrastructure plus education equals jobs. We have to invest as well as cut. This bill would slash the investments we need to put people back to work and to grow our economy. It cuts Pell Grants. It would cut education at every level. It would cut monies for roads and bridges. It would cut money that would help this economy grow that can help put more people back to work so we can start reducing the debt in a responsible way.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of this debate, I will ask the House to defeat the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment that will ensure that this bill does nothing to impede job increases and economic growth. So a vote in favor of the previous question is a vote to increase unemployment and to threaten our economic recovery.

Given the fact that you gave us a closed rule, I don't think it's too much to ask that we have at least some language in here that protects jobs and that would protect the American worker.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?

There was no objection.

Mr. McGOVERN. I urge my colleagues to vote
"no'' on the previous question, reject this closed rule that is unfair, and reject the underlying legislation.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source