Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, we are here this morning to carry out a very grave duty. We are here to express the horror felt by the American people upon seeing the graphic images and learning of the torture, abuse, brutalization, and humiliation of Iraqi detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison. We are here to condemn such acts. But we are also here to do much more. We need to make clear that this Congress not only condemns these actions, but demands a full investigation and accountability for those who perpetrated these acts, those who ordered these acts, those who turned a blind eye to these acts, and those in the chain of command who failed to act upon repeated warnings and reports of abuse of Iraqi detainees. Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe that the overwhelming majority of our uniformed men and women currently on active duty in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere carry out their duties in an exemplary manner. They have represented the United States in perilous times with great distinction and great honor. And it is critical that Congress not blindly accept the scapegoating of a few enlisted men and women when there is a much more serious, troubling, high-ranking, and systemic problem that needs our most serious attention. In December last year, Human Rights Watch issued a searing report on inhumane conditions and abuses of detainees under U.S. authority in Afghanistan. We now know from the media that the International Committee for the Red Cross has also been urging U.S. military authorities to make substantial changes on how detainees are treated at prison facilities throughout Iraq. Mr. Speaker, this is a grave and serious crisis, and I do not use the word ``crisis'' lightly. It is a crisis for our relations with the people of Iraq. It is a crisis for our relations with our allies. It is a crisis for our intentions to create a stable and more democratic Middle East. It is a crisis for our Armed Forces, whose honor has been stained by these revelations. It is a crisis for our Nation whose honor, intentions, reputation, and moral authority are now suspect throughout the world. It is a crisis for the safety of our troops in the field and the safety of our homeland. Mr. Speaker, I fear for every American, military and civilian, who is now held captive in Iraq. For how can we demand standards for the humane treatment of our own citizens when it appears to many that we have turned our backs on those very standards and international law in our treatment of foreign detainees? Mr. Speaker, Congress needs to carry out its own thorough investigation, not just about what happened at one isolated prison in Iraq, but in the breakdown in chain of command and the context within the Armed Forces that created such a climate for these crimes to take place. I believe the conditions that led to abuse were created at the very top when our Secretary of Defense announced early in the war against terrorism that the Geneva Conventions would not apply to many of our actions, especially those concerning detainees. I believe the conditions that led to abuse were created at the very top when independent monitors were denied access to prisons and detention facilities. I believe the conditions that led to abuse were created at the very top when decisions were made to assign troops, many of whom were inexperienced in prisoner treatment and the rights of prisoners, rather than to troops who have been trained for such duty. I believe the conditions that led to abuse were created at the very top when information and reports were withheld from the relevant intelligence, defense, and foreign policy Congressional committees regarding these abuses. Mr. Speaker, I also believe that this Congress needs to take a hard and serious look at the use of private contractors engaged in interrogation of prisoners and ensure that their role in these abuses is fully investigated and punished. But even more importantly, I believe the President of the United States must act. The President must demonstrate exactly how serious the United States is about changing the conditions that led to these abuses. The President prides himself on being a plain-spoken, straight- shooting man of action. This moment desperately calls for some plain speaking and accountability. Anonymous leaks to the news media about the President of the United States ``privately chiding'' the Secretary of Defense simply will not do. Mr. Speaker, Donald Rumsfeld needs to resign as Secretary of Defense, and if he does not do so, President Bush should fire him. No other action, no other words would send as strong a signal to the world that the United States is serious about fixing what is wrong in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, I regret that this resolution required a rule for debate. I regret that unanimous consent could not be obtained. But I firmly believe that this resolution needs to assert the oversight responsibilities, our own accountability, and investigate these abuses and the systems that created a climate of abuse. We cannot call for accountability by others and then shirk our own responsibilities. I firmly believe that we must investigate the roles of both our uniformed personnel and private contractors in these abuses, and I would have hoped that the majority would believe the same. Mr. Speaker, at the conclusion of this debate, I will move the previous question. If defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule allowing for the consideration of an amendment to be offered by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member of the House Committee on Armed Services, affirming the need for a bipartisan congressional investigation to be conducted immediately into these allegations of abuse, including those by civilian contractor personnel and into systemic chain of command and other systemic deficiencies that contributed to such abuse. I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in this effort to affirm the need for the Congress to carry out its constitutional duties of oversight. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) for urging many of us to come to the floor today to say a few words about Mary McGrory, who passed away 2 weeks ago. Mr. Speaker, like countless people in this country and around the world, I loved Mary McGrory. She was an absolutely beautiful writer, and she was an absolutely beautiful person. To me, she was a treasured and dear friend. Mary's columns, which first appeared in the Washington Star and then in The Washington Post, were always well written and always right to the point. She took on such subjects as Joe McCarthy, the war in Vietnam, Richard Nixon, and U.S. policy in Central America. And while she was an unabashed liberal and proud of it, many of her admirers included some of the most conservative politicians in America, in large part because they admired her integrity and her character. She called it as she saw it.

Mr. McGOVERN. I appreciate the gentleman's words. Mr. Speaker, I would also remind those who are watching that her words that appeared in the Washington Star after the assassination of President Kennedy are still remembered and are still quoted today and are incredibly moving. She was also a rarity in that when she felt she was wrong, she said so. I remember that she was less than thrilled when President Bill Clinton gave Gerry Adams a visa to come to the United States to engage in talks about peace in Northern Ireland. It was a big deal to many of us who thought President Clinton was right because when you think of Irish, you think of Mary McGrory, and it was important to have her on your side. But later on Mary demonstrated the courage and the moral compass to publicly observe that her original words of skepticism might have been wrong. I admired that so much that she was willing to write in her column that she had a change of heart. Over the years, Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of being invited to many of Mary's famous dinner parties. These remarkable events were attended by who's who in Washington. There were politicians, journalists, administration officials. Oftentimes the Ambassadors of Ireland, Italy, and India were present. There were young people and some not-so-young people, and there were lots of people whom Mary just found interesting, friends of hers over the years. The conversations were always lively and off the record. I learned a lot about Washington and the world just by sitting back and listening. These dinner parties, however, were about more than just politics and good conversation. They were parties that were also about entertainment and about fun. Mary liked to have people sing for their supper. Mark Gearan, a long-time aide to President Bill Clinton, former director of the Peace Corps and now president of Hobart and William Smith Colleges in Geneva, New York, was regularly enlisted to play the piano. Phil Gailey, a former coworker of Mary's at her beloved Washington Star and now with the St. Petersburg Times, would play some sort of harp instrument that to this day I still cannot identify. Some of Mary's guests, like Louise Slaughter and Tom Daschle and John Podesta and Dick Gephardt and Ed Markey and Max Cleland and Mary Gearan and Nancy Pelosi, the late Tip O'Neill and my former boss, the late Joe Moakley, were often called upon to sing from Mary's song book. Some of her favorites included ``Amazing Grace'' and ``The Battle Hymn of the Republic'' and ``When Irish Eyes Are Smiling.'' Other people were asked to tell jokes or recite poetry. And then there were people like me with absolutely no talent who would hide in the back of the room, I was always afraid she would call on me, and watch this amazing show unfold. Mary also did a great deal for this community. She was a huge supporter of St. Ann's Infant and Maternity Home in Hyattsville, Maryland. She volunteered there. She read to a lot of young kids, many of them who had no families. She gave them love, and she gave them hope. She used to take them to Hickory Hill, to Ethyl Kennedy's house, for swimming on a regular basis. A lot of the young kids could not pronounce her name, so they used to call her Mary Gloria instead of Mary McGrory. In fact they named a room after her called the Mary Gloria Room. Mr. Speaker, let me just conclude with one final personal thought. When Mary died, she left instructions about how her funeral would be conducted. Her assistant Tina called me and said that Mary wanted me to be a pallbearer. I was so touched, and I thought it was such a great honor. It was to me an honor like getting an honorary degree from an Ivy League college or university because I admired this woman so much. She stood for all the right things, and she was a great woman of integrity and character. Mr. Speaker, all of us who are gathered here today and I think all the people who are watching all throughout this country will miss Mary McGrory. I already do.

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my Special Order out of order.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to my colleague, the gentlewoman from North Carolina, who I have great respect for. We serve together on the Committee on Rules, and I did not think we had much of a philosophical difference because I have admired a lot of the comments that she has made over the last several months about the importance of this Congress being fiscally responsible. The gentlewoman actually heads the Republican's Study Group which represents a lot of the more conservative Members of this Chamber, but I read a quote that she had made that appeared in Congress Daily on January 22 that I actually agree with. She says, ``I support making tax cuts permanent, but we have to pay for them.'' I think the only kind of difference that we seem to have on this debate, which I did not think we did based on this quote, was that we want tax relief and we want it paid for. My colleague from New York says that we always want to say but, but, but. Well, it is not that we want to say ``but.'' I think most Americans want us to be fiscally responsible, and the fact of the matter is we are faced with the largest deficits in the history of our country. That used to be a concern on the other side of the aisle. It does not seem to be a concern anymore, and we are also faced with record job losses. I mean, 2.6 million jobs have been lost under this administration. I am concerned by the fact that we cannot seem to get a highway bill to the President's desk. The gentleman from New York is on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. He knows full well that if we passed a transportation bill, we would create a lot of jobs by investing in our infrastructure and investing in our highways. So if we want to get serious about controlling this deficit, I think we need to show a little fiscal responsibility here on the House floor. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume, and I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, marriage penalty tax relief is a good thing, not paying for it is a bad thing. All of us in this Chamber support tax fairness for married couples. But the question is, who supports tax fairness for future generations? The deficit in this country continues to skyrocket, and what is disturbing to me is that there do not seem to be very many people on the other side of the aisle that care very much about that fact. We have to give President Clinton and his administration credit because, during the Clinton administration, this country experienced the first budget surpluses since the 1960s. Democrats and Republicans, working in a bipartisan way, delivered balanced budgets and extended the solvency of Social Security and Medicare well into the 21st century, but then the Bush administration moved into the White House, and fiscal responsibility went out of fashion. Over the course of three major tax cuts, essentially handouts to the wealthiest Americans and corporations in this country, the $5.6 trillion surplus became a $2.9 trillion deficit, a stunning $8.5 trillion reversal. Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership claimed they were providing middle-class tax relief, but the truth is that the vast majority of these tax cuts went to the wealthiest individuals and corporations in this country. They claimed that these tax cuts would stimulate the economy and create jobs, but the truth is that this country has lost more than 2 million jobs since the President took office. They claim that this country could afford these tax cuts; but the truth is, they have squandered the Clinton surplus and actually hidden the long-term costs of these tax cuts by pretending that they will expire in 2010. Mr. Speaker, the American people, I believe, can separate the rhetoric from reality. Over the next 4 weeks, starting today, this House will consider legislation to extend various provisions of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. Mind you, we will consider these bills without a budget resolution, the framework for all Federal spending for the upcoming fiscal year; and we will consider them years before many of them actually expire. Today's offering is a bill to extend marriage penalty tax relief beyond 2010. I fully support extending tax relief for married couples, but this bill that the Republican leadership has drafted has the same problem as their previous bills. It is not paid for. Well, I should say actually it will be paid for some day, but not by this Congress. Just like in 2001 and 2003, the Republicans pass the cost of their tax cuts to our children and to our grandchildren. In essence, they are raising taxes on future generations. Mr. Speaker, that is not fair and that is not right. Democrats, I think, have a better plan to extend marriage penalty relief. The Democratic substitute improves this legislation with three simple, commonsense provisions. First, the Democrats extend the earned income tax credit for low- and middle-income married couples; and the Democratic bill speeds up the EITC marriage penalty relief included in the 2001 tax cut bill, ensuring that low- and middle-income married couples are not penalized by this unfair tax. Second, Democrats exempt any marriage penalty relief from the alternative minimum tax. Unfortunately, over half of the marriage penalty relief is taken away from married couples by the Federal Government because of the alternative minimum tax. The Republican bill fails to fix this unfair taxation, and many married couples will find that the government is taxing the very relief promised them by the Republican leadership. We will not see that in the Republican press releases today. Third, Mr. Speaker, the Democrats provide an offset. Unlike the Republican bill, Democrats actually pay for this tax relief. Democrats do not believe we should be passing the burden of paying for these tax cuts onto future generations. Mr. Speaker, every day American families must make tough choices with their hard-earned money. They budget for groceries and housing, transportation, education and child care. They spend sensibly within their means. Congress could learn a lot from the average American family. Congress should live within its means as well. It is very simple. If you are going to spend, you should pay for it. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the other side of the aisle is ignoring that important lesson. We have an opportunity here today to work together and provide meaningful marriage penalty relief to married couples, regardless of income; and we can do this in a way that we pay for it. So I would urge my friends on the other side of the aisle to join us today. Support the Rangel-Matsui Democratic substitute. Show the American people that this Congress can actually act in a fiscally responsible manner, that it does indeed care about the deficit and the fiscal health of this Nation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume and again thank the gentleman for his remarks; but this is not an excuse. This is very serious. We are now faced with the biggest deficit in the history of this country; and every single Member, Republican and Democrat, liberal and conservative, should be worried about it because we are passing this on to our kids and our grandkids. That is no joking matter. That is serious. I believe if we do not reverse this trend, we will undercut our ability to grow jobs. So I want tax relief, but I also want us to be fiscally responsible and pay for it. That is consistent with the statement of my colleague from North Carolina, who I have great admiration for. I just wish when we say these things, we would actually fight to make them a reality on this House floor. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume and say to the gentleman from New York that my favorite four letter word as well is ``jobs,'' and I am, quite frankly, very worried about the fact that under this administration and under their economic policies we have lost 2.6 million jobs. I want to make sure that our economy moves in a different direction. I guess I also believe that one of the ways to help continue to move us in a different direction is to get our fiscal house in order and to reverse this trend that we are now pursuing, which is one of record deficits. Going deeper into debt, in the long run, is going to undercut our economy and undercut our ability to grow jobs. What we are simply saying here is that, yes, we believe in marriage penalty tax relief; but we think it should be paid for. I do not think that should be controversial. That seems consistent with a lot of statements made by the other side of the aisle over the many years I have heard speeches being given on this floor. What we are doing today is not paid for. What we are doing today, in the end, is going to bring us further into debt; and I think that we can do this better. We should be able to come together in a bipartisan way and get this right. I think that is what the American people would expect. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Again, Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the Democratic substitute that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) will offer. I think it is a responsible way to approach this issue because it supports marriage penalty tax relief, but it pays for it. The gentlewoman from North Carolina mentioned that their budget resolution urges that we pay for additional spending programs. I am all for pay-as-you-go rules, but I think they should also apply to tax cuts. I think it is the responsible thing to do. I think all of us here would like to go home to our districts and talk about all the tax relief that we can provide our American families; but I think without specifying how we are going to pay for it, it is really irresponsible. It is a nice press release. It is a nice kind of public relations item. But if we do not pay for it, what we are really doing is we are passing the burdens on to future generations, to our children, our grandchildren, and our great grandchildren. My grandfather used to say to me that you cannot have dessert without first having your spinach, and I think that that is a good lesson for us to apply to how we do business on the House floor. It is nice to get up here and talk about tax cuts and tax cuts and tax cuts, but it would be better to do so in the context that we pay for them. I think that is what the American people expect. That is what American families have to do. They pay as they go. They have to live within their means, and I think that same lesson should apply here. So having said that, Mr. Speaker, we have no objection to the rule, but I would urge my colleagues very strongly to do the responsible thing and to support the Rangel-Matsui Democratic substitute. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to one of the many great local officials who provide such dedicated service to the cities and towns all across this country that we are privileged to represent. Because our office requires that we are frequently away from our constituents, I think we sometimes fail to fully appreciate and seldom still acknowledge the daily demands that our mayors, city councilors and selectmen encounter in the communities where they live and serve. For no less than 18 years, Mary Rose Dickhaut has met and mastered those daily demands as a selectman in the Town of Clinton, Massachusetts. On Tuesday, May 4th, she will return to life as a private citizen, leaving behind a sterling example of civic commitment and selfless devotion to one's hometown. Mary Rose's tenure both as a member of the Board of Selectmen and as Chairman is unsurpassed in a community widely known for its rich and vibrant political culture. Her public service is remarkable not only for its longevity and distinction as the town's first and only female selectmen but for its impressive record of achievement as well. After nearly two decades, there is scarcely a local issue or major municipal project in the Town of Clinton that has not benefitted from the strong, steady and forceful advocacy of Mary Rose Dickhaut. She led the town in its historic battle against the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority to enforce a century old agreement to provide drinking water to the citizens of Clinton. She championed the restoration of the community's Town Hall, the revitalization of its downtown and the expansion of its police station. Long before it was fashionable to do so, Mary Rose urged the town to invest in its rapidly deteriorating water and sewer infrastructure. In 1999 and 2000, she cochaired the town's 150th Anniversary Celebration Committee which planned, among many other memorable events, the first Olde Home Days Festival in Central Park that has since grown to become a popular annual attraction for families from all over Central Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, while these very public accomplishments have placed Mary Rose's indelible handprint on the Town of Clinton, they do not begin to fully describe the tremendous contributions and sacrifices she has made on its behalf. As we know, many of the good deeds performed by elected officials go unnoticed and unrecorded. For 18 years, Mary Rose has graciously taken the nightly phone calls at home, politely endured the interrupted trips to the grocery store and faithfully attended the countless committee meetings and public hearings. She has endeavored whenever possible to help those who sought her capable assistance and to better her community for future generations to enjoy. Through it all, she has maintained a well-deserved reputation for honesty and integrity and earned the respect of her colleagues for her keen intellect, diligent work ethic and an unfailing fidelity to the town's best interests. Mr. Speaker, the Town of Clinton, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the United States of America owe Mary Rose Dickhaut a debt of gratitude for her years of dedicated service. Accordingly, I respectfully request that this esteemed body convey its heartfelt appreciation to Mary Rose for her efforts and our best wishes for a happy, healthy and enjoyable retirement from public life. Madam Chairman, you have earned it.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this April marks the 89th anniversary of the cataclysmic events that occurred in the Turkish Ottoman Empire between 1915 and 1923, where 1.5 million Armenians were killed and over a half million survivors were forcibly deported into exile. On Sunday, I had the privilege to participate in a service at the Armenian Church of Our Savior in Worcester, Massachusetts, where in the presence of 19 survivors, the community of Worcester paid homage to the martyrs and survivors of the Armenian Genocide and their descendents. Mr. Speaker, last May, the House Committee on the Judiciary reported out House Resolution 193. We have been waiting for nearly 1 year now for the Speaker of the House to schedule this bill for a debate and for a vote, and I would urge at this time that the Speaker schedule this bill as quickly as possible so that the House of Representatives may join those nations and those scholars who affirm the Genocide Convention and recognize the Armenian Genocide and Holocaust as genocides of the 20th century. Mr. Speaker, I am submitting for the Record comments I made at the Armenian Church of Our Savior this past Sunday. I would very much like to thank Father Terzian and the community of faith of the Armenian Church of Our Savior for inviting me once again to this commemoration. It is one of the great privileges of my office to participate in this annual day of remembrance of the martyrs and survivors of the Armenian Genocide. It is a privilege to be in the company of our city's mayor, the Honorable Tim Murray, and in the company of Councilor Petty, Representative Leary, Representative Fresolo, Senator Moore, Senator Glodis, and Selectman Montocalvo. And I am very much looking forward to the pleasure of hearing the Worcester Chorale perform after their five-month break, under the continuing leadership of Maestro Petrossian. It is also a pleasure for me to share the podium with Nathaniel Mencow, who is so well known for his work as a historian, and who has worked for so long for the recognition of the heroic service of his brother, First Lieutenant William Martin Mencow, who gave his life in defense of freedom during World War II. But I am most privileged and most honored to be here in the presence of survivors of the Armenian Genocide, their descendents, and the descendents of those who perished in the genocide. This April marks the 89th anniversary of the cataclysmic events that occurred in the Ottoman Empire between 1915 and 1923, where one-and-a-half million Armenians were killed and over half-a-million survivors were exiled. Our city has been especially blessed by the presence and contributions of a large and vital Armenian community. Each year we come to this church to recognize, honor and remember that this rich heritage is, in part, a sad inheritance paid with the blood of millions of innocent men, women and children. I know that most of you are aware that legislation has been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives which reaffirms U.S. support for the Genocide Convention, calls upon the president and the U.S. government to work to prevent future genocides, and recognizes the Armenian Genocide. This bill, H. Res. 193, has 110 bipartisan cosponsors and was reported out of the House Judiciary Committee last May. It has been waiting for nearly one year now for the Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, to put it on the schedule of the House for debate and vote. I am always amazed that there are those in Congress who view this bill as controversial. They are influenced, in part, by those voices who continue to deny that the Armenian Genocide or the Holocaust, which is also cited in this bill, ever happened. The Turkish government, for example, claims that the Armenian Genocide does not meet the definition of genocide, despite the fact that the father of the Genocide Convention, human rights pioneer Rafael Lemkin, specifically cited the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide as the two clear instances of genocidal crimes covered by the Convention. Contrary to the Turkish government's claims, legal scholars, historians, human rights organizations, journalists and the majority of political leaders around the world firmly believe and assert that the 1915 mass slaughter of Armenians fits the legal definition of genocide. Israel Charney, the noted genocide and Holocaust scholar and the editor of the respected Encyclopedia of Genocide, has written extensively about the psychology of genocide denial. He has stressed that to deny the countless deaths of a known event of genocide is to celebrate those deaths and to send a signal that the power that brought about this destruction is still in force and can be used again when opportunity permits. To seek to erase agonizing memories--to assert that those memories are false--is to openly mock the feelings and sensibilities of the victims and their descendents--to once again victimize the victims. This is why it is so important to recognize--openly and freely, officially and informally, every single day--the events of the Armenian Genocide. America, along with the rest of the world, is famous for using the words ``never again,'' when speaking about the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust carried out by Nazi Germany. Unfortunately, ``never again'' happens over and over again--in Cambodia, in Rwanda, in Kosovo, and now in present- day Sudan. It has been a blessing to me in my work that when genocide threatens any people, anywhere in the world, the Armenian- American community has always worked to bring these events to my attention and to the attention of U.S. and international policy-makers. The Armenian-American community has always joined with other organizations to educate the public about present-day horrors and to organize relief and support for victims and survivors. In this way, through these works, the tragedy of the Armenian Genocide is transformed into a legacy of life, of hope, of survival and resistance. So, I come here today not only to remember and honor the martyrs, survivors and descendants of the Armenian Genocide, but to honor and celebrate this community, which has given back so much to this city and our country. Please let me thank you--each and every one of you--for allowing me to share this day with you.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I was unavoidably detained and did not vote on rollcall vote No. 116. Were I present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 116.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would simply say that there were a lot of good amendments dealing with truck sizes and truck weights but also dealing with issues like outsourcing that the Committee on Rules chose not to make in order, which I think is unfortunate.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy. The National Troopers Coalition, the Society of Trauma Nurses, these groups know firsthand the danger caused by bigger and heavier trucks on our roadways. So I urge my colleagues to oppose both the Bradley and the Chocola amendments. Again, Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Ranking Member Oberstar) and all of the members of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for their hard work.

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

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I think what I said was this was an unnecessarily restrictive rule, and what I meant to say is that, as usual, this is a restrictive rule that we have come to expect of the Committee on Rules. There were a number of good amendments that were not made in order, and I think that, as a result, I will oppose the rule.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, while the Committee on Rules this morning reported out of committee an unnecessarily restrictive rule, and, as a result I will not support the rule, I do want to commend the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), as well as the subcommittee chair, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Lipinski), for all their hard, bipartisan work on this highway reauthorization bill. They recognized the importance of adequately meeting our Nation's transportation needs and of creating good-paying jobs for the American people at a time when we desperately need new jobs. I only wish that the leadership of this House and the White House would follow their lead and the lead of the entire membership of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. There are lots of good things in this bill, but I continue to believe that the overall funding level is not enough to meet our needs. In States all across this country, including Massachusetts, roads and bridges are crumbling under the burden of age and heavy use. Adequate infrastructure is essential for economic development. We can do better, and I am hopeful that in the very near future we will have the opportunity to return to transportation policy to finish the work that this bill begins. I was glad to hear the distinguished Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Chair say that he would be back fighting for more money, and I will certainly stand with him in that effort. Mr. Speaker, I am also concerned about efforts by some Members to decrease highway safety and quality by increasing truck size and truck weight. This rule makes in order two amendments that are particularly troublesome. The first, offered by my colleague, the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bradley), would create an exemption from existing Federal truck size and weight limits for certain roads in his home State. The exemption for New Hampshire would damage the highway infrastructure, especially bridges, and cost taxpayers a great deal of money. The U.S. Department of Transportation calculated that if the exemptions the Bradley amendment would create were applied nationwide, it would result in additional bridge costs to taxpayers of $329 billion. Further, heavier trucks are more dangerous. As truck weights increase, fatal accident rates will go up, according to the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute. In fact, the Institute says, ``Gross combination weight is the only vehicle characteristic showing a clear association with the overall fatal accident rate.'' I also urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola). This amendment would allow truck operators who use ``idle reduction technology'' to operate at 400 pounds above the Federal legal weight limits. Although this seems to be only a minor increase in weight, it would actually cost Americans hundreds of millions of tax dollars each year because of the increased pavement damage this additional weight would cause. According to the EPA, there is an inexpensive alternative to the idle reduction technology proposed in this amendment that would still reduce emissions and save fuel without adding additional weight. The alternative is stand-alone truck stop electrification systems, which are permanent structures located at various truck stops that have HVAC systems attached. The driver purchases a one-time $10 adapter and pays an hourly rate to use the system. The Chocola amendment also runs counter to the recent agreement between the American Trucking Association, and the Association of American Railroads that calls for no national truck weight increases in the transportation reauthorization bill. While a 400-pound weight increase may seem innocuous, it is not as simple as it seems, and it is best left out of this highway reauthorization bill. Proposals to increase truck sizes and weights have been opposed by a broad range of national organizations because of their negative impact on the highway infrastructure and their danger to other motorists. Organizations opposing bigger trucks include the American Automobile Association, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, the National Association of Emergency Medical Technicians, the National Association of Police Organizations, and the National Troopers Coalition.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I would say to my colleague from New Hampshire that the difference between Massachusetts and New Hampshire is that the trucks that he is referring to operate on toll roads, and the taxpayers of Massachusetts are paying for the damage that is done by these heavier trucks on these roads, not the taxpayers across the country. That is a major difference. Again, I oppose this amendment for all the reasons that I stated, and I would simply remind my colleagues that this bill that we have before us today is underfunded. It does not meet all of what DOT says we need to have to be able to maintain the status quo in terms of maintaining our transportation infrastructure. This, in my opinion, opens the door to bigger trucks, not only in New Hampshire but in other parts of the country as well.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and with all due respect to my colleague from New Hampshire, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This amendment is about opening the door to allow bigger and bigger trucks on our interstate highway system. And although this amendment is drafted in a form that appears to apply only to the State of New Hampshire, its impact will reach all States, all taxpayers, and all motorists. Allowing these superheavy trucks on the interstates in New Hampshire would cause substantial bridge damage, cost the taxpayers money, and threaten the safety of motorists, and not just impacting the people of New Hampshire but people all across this country. Let me explain. Operating 99,000-pound trucks on New Hampshire's interstates would require replacing and strengthening interstate bridges, at a huge cost to taxpayers all over this country. Heavier single tractor trailer trucks do not pay for all the damage they do to roadways. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, a 100,000-pound six-axle single tractor-trailer truck pays only 40 percent. Taxpayers pay the rest. Not just taxpayers in New Hampshire, but all across this country. Heavier singles pose numerous safety risks. As weights go from 65,000 to 80,000 pounds, the risk of an accident involving a fatality goes up 50 percent. In addition, these superheavy trucks will have added braking and steering problems and the risk for rollover will increase. Now, I believe that 80,000 pounds is enough on the interstate, on urban connectors, and all roads. So there are consequences here that go far beyond what the gentleman has outlined. So while I have great respect for him, and I understand his concern about safety, I think the debate should be about the fact that these trucks get bigger and bigger and bigger. I think that is what poses the safety risks to the people of New Hampshire and people all over the country.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just simply say to the gentleman that Harvard does have an ROTC unit. One thing I suggested in my opening remarks, and I would suggest it again, is that probably the best way to kind of put this controversy to rest is for the military to deal with some of the discriminatory practices that currently exist. Some of these colleges have nondiscrimination policies that, quite frankly, conflict with some of the blatantly discriminatory policies that we now see happening in the Pentagon. I would simply say to the gentleman that maybe a way to resolve this, we can also deal with some of the underlying issues that continue to exist.