Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 25 seconds to respond to the gentleman from California. In 2009 the number of total murders per capita in the U.S.A. was 5 per 100,000. In Mexico, it was 18.4, and in Colombia it was 37.3. These are all government statistics. If 23 labor leaders and 29 civil rights leaders and 6 priests were targeted and murdered in Los Angeles so far this year because of their work in the community, I would like to think that the city or the gentleman from California would be up in arms about that. But that's the reality in Colombia. At this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York, the ranking Democrat on the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California, the ranking Democrat on the Education and Workforce Committee, Mr. Miller. (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself 20 seconds. Mr. Speaker, if Colombia is so safe, then why do 2,000 labor leaders need round-the-clock protection? I mean, if Colombia is so safe, why are there nearly 5 million internally displaced people and over 1 million Colombian refugees in neighboring countries? It is because they're fleeing the violence and civil unrest. Mr. Speaker, at this point I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud).

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, on Sunday, newspapers across the country reported that the total number of U.S. military deaths in Afghanistan since 2001 is 1,780. This tally may be slightly incomplete because of lags in reporting. One thousand seven hundred and eighty servicemen and women, Madam Speaker. Husbands and fathers, wives and mothers, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters--holes created in families and communities that can never be filled, losses that will be felt for a generation or more. Saturday began a new fiscal year, Madam Speaker, fiscal year 2012. According to the Congressional Research Service, the estimated war funding for Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001 through fiscal year 2011 is $1.283 trillion; $443 billion of that has been spent in Afghanistan. For fiscal year 2012, which began on Saturday, we will spend another $113.7 billion in Afghanistan. By this time next year, our total spending in Afghanistan will be $557.1 billion, or over half a trillion dollars. And when I say ``spend,'' Madam Speaker, I really mean ``borrow,'' because from day one of the Afghanistan war--and the Iraq war, for that matter--we have not paid for these wars. We have borrowed nearly every single penny of that money, put it on the national credit card, let it rack up over a quarter of our cumulative deficit, helped explode our debt year after year for a decade. There has only been one other time in the history of the United States that a war was financed entirely through borrowing, Madam Speaker, without raising taxes, and that was when the colonies borrowed from France during the Revolutionary War. I know lots of Members in this House believe in the Tea Party, but that's just stupid economics. Even if we were to leave Afghanistan and Iraq tomorrow, our war debt will continue for decades. Future bills will include such things as caring for our military veterans and providing them the benefits they have earned through their services. It will require replacing military equipment, rebuilding our Armed Forces and paying interest on the trillions we have borrowed for these wars. These costs are significant. Madam Speaker, this Friday, October 7, marks the 10th anniversary of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan. Ten years, Madam Speaker. Ten years of support for a corrupt government. Ten years of sacrificing our brave uniformed men and women. Ten years of borrowing money we never had. This war is no longer about going after al Qaeda, which I voted to do. Osama bin Laden is dead. Instead, we're now bogged down in a seemingly endless occupation in support of a corrupt, incompetent Karzai government. This is not what I voted for. And the human and financial costs of the war in Afghanistan go on and on and on, not just on the battlefields of Afghanistan, but in veterans hospitals and counseling clinics around the country. Another $8.4 billion to care for our veterans wounded in both body and soul. We continue to struggle with soaring posttraumatic stress and suicide rates among our soldiers and our veterans. Their impacts are devastating on families, friends, colleagues, and military buddies. It is hard to explain how we could borrow and spend so freely, so casually, while our men and women bled in the plains and mountains of Afghanistan, but now we have to face the consequences of that lack of accountability, that lack of responsible governance. When the supercommittee makes its decisions on how to handle the deficit and the debt, I say ending the wars as rapidly as possible must be the first item on the table. I also say that, from this point forward, the wars must be paid for. No more emergency funding. No more overseas contingency funds that get a free pass from responsible budgeting. I believe President Obama has to bring this to the negotiations, and the House and Senate members of the supercommittee have to step up to the plate and end these wars. End these wars now. They have undermined our economy, and they have undermined our security. Ten years into the Afghanistan war, the violence shows no signs of abating; the Karzai government shows little interest in cleaning up corruption; and no one is interested in the kind of region-wide negotiations required to bring stability and security to all parties. So I say enough is enough. Get out of Afghanistan. The costs in blood and treasure have been too high. Ten years is more than enough. After 10 years, it's time to come home.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I was in Colombia at the end of August with a delegation organized by the Washington Office on Latin America. In Medellin, we met with the National Labor School, or ENS, to discuss the current labor situation in Colombia. Their reports on threatened and murdered unionists are internationally recognized; and because of this, ENS faces constant threats and efforts to discredit them. While not at the levels of the early 2000s, violence against Colombia's workers continues. It is persistent and frequent. It is a reality that cannot be denied, and it is meant to silence people. At least 40 trade unionists have been murdered since President Santos took office last year. One benchmark in the Colombia Labor Action Plan is for the attorney general's office to meet with ENS and determine how to address the more than 2,900 cases of murdered unionists, of which 90 percent remain in impunity. The first meeting happened in May, but there's been no second meeting. In Bogota, I met with Deputy Attorney General Juan Carlos Forero. I asked him when the next meeting would happen, and he said ``imminently.'' Five weeks later, still no meeting. Last week, Human Rights Watch sent a study to Colombian Attorney General Viviane Morales. It says ``virtually no progress'' has been made in getting convictions for killings of labor activists that have occurred in just the past 4\1/2\ years. So virtually no progress on recent murders of labor activists, and little progress on past cases. Mr. Speaker, I met with port workers, campesinos, workers on palm oil plantations, and petroleum and factory workers. Their reality is filled with risk, threats, and even death. They are not valued as human beings, Colombian citizens, or productive members of society. In Cartagena, port workers went on strike in March. Their working conditions are inhumane, and they are forced to work under various subcontracting schemes. These contracts deny them basic benefits and keep them in constant uncertainty about whether they will be working next week or even the next day. They just want the right to negotiate their contracts directly with their employers, the port associations. The port workers ended their strike after just a few days because the Santos government promised to facilitate talks between the workers and the port associations. But nothing happened. Nothing changed. In fact, some things are worse. As part of the LAP, the most common subcontracting scheme, the so-called ``cooperatives,'' was abolished, except nothing was done to facilitate direct contracting between workers and their employers. So a new scheme has popped up called ``simplified joint stock companies,'' or SAS. Good-bye cooperatives, hello SAS. Meet the new boss; worse than the old boss. The government has done little to help, unfortunately. When I asked Vice President Garzon about the port workers, he promised to meet again with their union leader. Mr. Speaker, it's not the workers he needs to meet with and convince to negotiate. It's the presidents of the port associations. Oil workers from Meta showed me photographs and documents describing poor living and working conditions, unfair contracts, and how the Canadian Venezuelan oil company, Pacific Rubiales, acts like a sovereign government on Colombian soil, destroying public roads, firing workers for organizing, and calling in security forces to tear gas striking workers. I'm sure it's not the whole picture, but once again striking workers returned to work because the government promised to open talks with the company. Again, all the workers are asking for is the right to negotiate directly with the company about their contracts and their living and working conditions, and once again the Colombian Government let the workers down. In September, the strike was renewed, more explosive on all sides than the last one, because nothing had changed since July. Bruno Moro, the U.N. delegate in Colombia, called on everyone to come to the table and resolve the crisis, describing the conflict as the result of no one creating conditions for dialogue. The workers have again returned to work because of agreements by the government to open talks with the company. This time, I hope the government keeps its word. Mr. Speaker, nothing I saw in Colombia indicated things have changed for the better on the ground for Colombia's workers. Before we take up the FTA, we must demand concrete improvements in labor rights and security for Colombia's workers. Whatever we're doing now isn't working, it isn't making a difference, and it simply isn't enough. [From Associated Press, Oct. 2, 2011] Study: Colombia Anti-Union Violence Undeterred (By Frank Bajak) Bogota, Colombia.--A new study challenges claims from the administration of President Barack Obama that Colombia is making important strides in bringing to justice killers of labor activists and so deserves U.S. congressional approval of a long-stalled free trade pact. The Human Rights Watch study found ``virtually no progress'' in getting convictions for killings that have occurred in the past 4\1/2\ years. It counted just six convictions obtained by a special prosecutions unit from 195 slayings between January 2007 and May 2011, with nearly nine in 10 of the unit's cases from that period in preliminary stages with no suspect formally identified. Democrats in the U.S. Congress have long resisted bringing the Colombia trade pact to a vote, citing what they said is insufficient success in halting such killings. The White House disagrees, and says Colombia has made significant progress in addressing anti-unionist violence. It is pushing for congressional approval as early as this week of the Colombia agreement along with pacts with South Korea and Panama, something the Republicans endorse and that they say will increase U.S. exports by $13 billion a year and support tens of thousands of jobs. U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk recently said the trade agreements are ``an integral part of the President's plan to create jobs here at home.'' But in Colombia, the world's most lethal country for labor organizing, the killings haven't stopped. At least 38 trade unionists have been slain since President Juan Manuel Santos took office in August 2010, says Colombia's National Labor School. ``A major reason for this ongoing violence has been the chronic lack of accountability for cases of anti-union violence,'' Human Rights Watch said in a letter sent Thursday to Colombian Chief Prosecutor Viviane Morales that details the study's findings. Convictions have been obtained for less than 10 percent of the 2,886 trade unionists killed since 1986, and the rights group said it found ``severe shortcomings'' in the work of a special unit of Morales' office established five years ago to solve the slayings. The letter says the unit has demonstrated ``a routine failure to adequately investigate the motive'' in labor killings as well as to ``bring to justice all responsible parties.'' A chief finding: The 74 convictions achieved over the past year owe largely to plea bargains with members of illegal far-right militias who confessed to killings in exchange for leniency. They did so under the so-called Justice and Peace law that gave paramilitary fighters reduced prison sentences of up to eight years in exchange for laying down their arms and confessing to crimes. That law expired at the end of 2006, the year the free trade pact was signed. Only in a handful of cases did prosecutors pursue evidence that the paramilitaries who confessed acted on the orders of politicians, employers or others, Human Rights Watch says. Prosecutors ``made virtually no progress in prosecuting people who order, pay, instigate or collude with paramilitaries in attacking trade unionists,'' the letter states. ``What is at stake is the justice system's ability to act as an effective deterrent to anti-union violence.'' Of the more than 275 convictions handed down through May, 80 percent were against former members of the United Self- Defense Forces of Colombia, or AUC. The head of international affairs in the chief prosecutor's office, Francisco Echeverri, told the AP that it has put 513 people in prison. In nearly half of 50 recent convictions reviewed by Human Rights Watch, the judges cited ``evidence pointing to the involvement of members of the security forces or intelligence services, politicians, landowners, bosses or coworkers.'' Yet in only one of those cases was such an individual convicted. In the case of a gym teacher and union activist killed in the northwestern town of San Rafael in 2002, one of the paramilitaries who confessed to the crime said it was committed at the request of the mayor, according to the judge's decision. The man who was mayor at the time and was re-elected in 2008, Edgar Eladio Giraldo, is not being formally investigated and has not been questioned about the killing, said Hernando Castaneda, chief of the special unit. ``I have no knowledge of that and did not know that I was involved in that,'' Giraldo told The Associated Press by telephone when asked about the killing of Julio Ernesto Ceballos. A spokeswoman for Chief Prosecutor Morales said Sunday that her boss had not yet yet seen the Human Rights Watch letter. Dan Kovalik of the United Steel Workers said the study's findings and the continued killings ``prove what labor is telling the White House: The labor rights situation in Colombia is not improving, and passage of the FTA is not appropriate.'' A memo soon to be released by the AFL-CIO deems Colombia noncompliant with the ``Labor Action Plan'' Santos and Obama agreed to in April as a condition for White House approval of the free trade pact. In the memo, shown to the AP, the labor federation finds neither ``economic, political, or moral justification for rewarding Colombia with a free trade agreement.'' Deputy Assistant U.S. Trade Representative Nkenge Harmon said Friday when presented with the study's findings that Colombia's record prosecuting ``perpetrators of violence'' against labor activists ``has improved significantly,'' though she added that Colombian officials acknowledge more needs to be done. Harmon also stressed that additional Colombian resources are being dedicated to the issue and that the U.S. government ``is working intensively with them through training and support.'' Human Rights Watch acknowledged that annual trade unionists killings are only a quarter of what they were a decade ago. And it applauded some measures taken by Chief Prosecutor Morales, including her announcement that an additional 100 police investigators would be assigned to the special investigative unit. But HRW regional director Jose Miguel Vivanco said ``the challenge (Morales) is facing remains huge.'' A U.S. congressman who has met with various Colombian presidents on human rights issues, Jim McGovern, a Democrat from Massachusetts, doesn't think enough has been done to reverse what he called a ``dismal'' record. Said McGovern: ``My worry is that if you approve the FTA at this particular point you remove all the pressure off the powers that be in Colombia to actually make a sincere, honest and concerted attempt to improve the situation.''

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I'm a little bit confused. The gentleman referred to the legislation before us that it would provide this for the American people and that for the American people. The legislation before us is a martial law rule which says that a bill that we have yet to see will be able to be brought up on the floor for same-day consideration. So I don't know what's in the new continuing resolution. Maybe the gentleman can enlighten us: Do we expect a vote on the continuing resolution today? When can we see this continuing resolution? Does the gentleman have any insight that he can fill us in on and when Members might actually be able to see the bill?

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I am going to hold this poster up because I want to make sure that it's clear to everybody. I'm going to quote this: ``I will not bring a bill to the floor that hasn't been posted online for at least 72 hours.'' John Boehner, Fox News, ``America's News Room,'' 7/ 22/2010. Mr. Speaker, we can have all the verbal gyrations that we can come up with here about how not to kind of get to the point, which is that we're not going to be able to have 3 days or 72 hours or 3 legislative days--or three anything--to look at this bill. And the bill that we're going to be debating later today or tomorrow--we don't really know--is going to be different. And we know it's going to be different because the chairman of the Rules Committee said in an interview that we have online to National Journal that there's probably going to be another $100 million more in offsets. And so where are those offsets coming from? We know that one of the offsets that was in the continuing resolution yesterday was an offset that actually was a job killer, that actually is something that not only Democrats supported, but the United States Chamber of Commerce supported. Everyone came together and agreed that this is a good program, and it was cut, and it is going to discourage job creation in this country. So I think it is important to know where these offsets are going to be coming from. And, again, let me repeat what I've said over and over: this has not been a bipartisan process. The only thing bipartisan about this continuing resolution was the opposition to it. And, again, I would tell my Republican friends that the reason why this promise by Speaker Boehner is important is because we do need to understand what's in the bill. We're beginning to understand that your rules don't live up to what you actually promised. Mr. Speaker, the other thing about this that I think is important for people to understand is that never, ever, ever have we ever insisted on offsets for emergency spending for disasters. We don't know whether there will be one, two, three, or no emergencies that hit our country next year or the year after or the year after that. Maybe my Republican friends have now figured out a way to predict earthquakes and tsunamis and hurricanes and tornadoes, but we don't know how to predict with any accuracy. And this notion that we're not going to be there, that we're going to insist on offsets in order to provide people who have been thrown out of their homes, whose communities have been destroyed through no fault of their own, that we can find an offset when we don't need any offsets for nation-building in Afghanistan, that's all on your credit card. There's no offsets needed for that. Why is it that no offsets are needed to do that kind of stuff, but when it comes to helping people in this country, all of a sudden we become super fiscally conservative? We need to have offsets for everything. You want to reduce the debt? Put people back to work. That's how you do it. Cutting programs that put people back to work doesn't put people back to work. It slows down the economic recovery. Here we are in September, and we have yet to deal with a single jobs bill on this floor. I don't know what it's like in California, but I can tell you in Massachusetts, when I go home, people want to talk about jobs and the economy. Yes, they want to reduce the debt, and they understand, by ending some of these wars, by cutting back on some of these overseas bases that we have, by asking Donald Trump to pay his fair share. There's something wrong in this country when a billionaire hedge fund manager pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. It's like, no, we can't ask that person, that billionaire to pay his fair share. Everything is aimed at working people and those who are most vulnerable. We should be talking about putting America back to work. We should be debating every day about ways to stimulate this economy, to provide incentives to put people back to work, to find ways to stop incentivizing corporations to send American jobs overseas. Instead, my friends on the other side of the aisle are protecting all that status quo. I mean, they are protecting those tax breaks, those incentives that encourage jobs to go overseas. Enough. Enough. I'll close by saying this, Mr. Speaker: When it comes to protecting subsidies for Big Oil companies, my friends are there. When it comes to rebuilding and nation building in Afghanistan, they're there. When it comes to maintaining a Tax Code that allows a billionaire hedge fund manager to pay a lower tax rate than his secretary, they're there. But when it comes to disaster assistance, when it comes to jobs, when it comes to things that matter to everyday people, it is a struggle. It is a fight. I would urge my colleagues to rethink their priorities, to work in a bipartisan way when it comes to disaster relief and job creation. Let's bring the President's jobs bill to the floor. If you don't like it, vote against it. But allow us to have the opportunity in this new, open House. Let us bring the President's jobs bill to the floor. Let us see whether we can pass it here. I think if this truly is an open House, we ought to have that opportunity. I will just say, Mr. Speaker, before I yield back the balance of my time, I don't know when we're going to get this bill. I don't know where the cuts are going to be made. I don't know what other job- creating programs are going to be cut. But again, ``I will not bring a bill to the floor that hasn't been posted on line for at least 72 hours.'' We're not even going to get 72 minutes, in all likelihood. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I just want to make sure the record is clear when it comes to Democratic support for the continuing resolution. In his pen and pad press conference, Minority Whip Hoyer said he was ``loath'' to support yesterday's CR, and I have a copy of that press conference and the transcript of the colloquy that went on on the House floor here. So if anybody is interested in reading it in detail, I have it here. At this point, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. McGOVERN. Which brings me back to my original point of why it's important for us to see this bill. You say that you want to eliminate waste, but the U.S. Chamber of Commerce says that the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing program is not waste; it creates jobs. So I don't know where else you're going to cut.

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I just found out some news here in answer to a question I had earlier about offsets. Apparently, according to the National Journal, the Republican leaders are considering tacking on as much as $100 million in additional offsets to their GOP continuing resolution they are bringing to the floor. That is a quote attributed to House Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier. So I just read in the National Journal basically that there will be additional offsets.

Mr. McGOVERN. Reclaiming my time, Madam Speaker, just for the record, I would like to have inserted a letter from Paul A. Yost, who's the vice president at the National Association of Manufacturers, and a letter from R. Bruce Josten, who is the executive vice president, Government Affairs of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States, both strongly objecting to the offset that Republicans included in the continuing resolution that we considered yesterday that went down. One of the reasons there was great objection over this, Madam Speaker, was because this program that was cut actually was a job- creating program putting people to work. I would say to my colleagues, if you want to reduce the debt in this country, you ought to figure out a way to put people back to work; and the way you put people back to work is not cut every single program that provides assistance to business and to people to be able to get on their feet and create jobs. We have a crisis in this country that is not being addressed by this House of Representatives which has yet to consider a single jobs bill. And instead, we have a continuing resolution that gets brought to the floor that provides less disaster assistance than the Senate bill does to people who are in need and pays for it, offsets it, by cutting a program to create jobs. What sense does that make? When it comes to disaster relief, we have never, ever, ever offset disaster relief because you can't predict with any accuracy whether there's going to be a tornado next year or a hurricane next year or an earthquake next year. There are some things we don't offset we should offset; for example, the wars. We've been in Afghanistan for 10 years, and I can't figure out why we're still there, but we're still there. Ten years. I can predict pretty much--very accurately--how much it will cost to stay another year, and yet we borrow that money. We put it on the credit card. We borrow $10 billion a month for military operations in Afghanistan that goes onto our credit card; not paid for. Not paid for. But when it comes to helping people in this country who have been adversely impacted by a natural disaster, through no fault of their own, who have lost their homes, who've seen their communities devastated, all of a sudden we're here saying we've got to find these offsets. And where do the offsets come from? They don't come from Donald Trump's tax cut. Where they come from is a program to put people to work. The gentleman, the chairman of the Rules Committee, talks about this great openness that we have in the Rules Committee. I have offered, I think about half a dozen times, an amendment to go after the U.S. taxpayer-funded oil subsidies, these subsidies that we provide oil companies that are making record profits, and we can't even get that issue for a vote on this House floor. I hope we have enough time to read what's in the bill. I hope that we have enough time to understand what's in the bill. I hope that we meet today. I hope that we meet at a decent hour. But we don't have the answers to any of those questions, and I think that that's unfortunate when it comes to a bill about the funding, the continuing funding of our government. Again, Madam Speaker, I regret that we are here. I regret that we are debating a martial law rule. We're not debating a continuing resolution right now. It's a martial rule that basically shuts everything down and allows them to bring up a bill any time they want to bring a bill up. People won't even have time to read it. And we'll have that vote possibly today. But again, we don't have any definite commitments from the other side what time or even if it will be today. I will close by saying, Madam Speaker, that I think it is important that this House gets back to the issue of jobs and protecting and caring for the people here in this country. Our biggest challenges, I'm going to tell my friends on the other side, are not halfway around the world; some of them are just halfway down the block. I regret very much that this Congress has yet to deal with the issue of jobs. Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, Washington, DC, September 22, 2011. To The Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: The U.S. chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business federation representing the interests of more than three million businesses and organizations of every size, sector, and region, strongly supports disaster relief funding to assist victims of natural disasters. The Chamber is also a vocal proponent of fiscal responsibility and recognizes that Congress must make difficult but necessary choices among competing priorities. As Congress sets spending priorities, the Chamber wishes to highlight a few important facts about the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing (ATVM) loan program. First, the program was authorized in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which was supported by both Republicans and Democrats as an important step in reducing America's dependence on oil from unstable regimes. Second, ATVM loans, which will be repaid with interest, incentivize automakers and suppliers to build more fuel-efficient advanced technology vehicles in the U.S., providing new, opportunities for American workers in a sector of the economy that is critical to the nation's recovery. Third, the fact that the Department of Energy has yet to use the funds Congress appropriated for the program is not the fault of industry; numerous loan applicants have been in the queue for years, waiting for the Administration to complete its due diligence. Again, while the Chamber understands the importance of reducing America's unacceptable debt and believes that all programs must be on the table, the Chamber urges you to bear in mind the facts about the ATVM loan program, which promotes manufacturing in the U.S. and is an important component of America's energy security. Sincerely, R. Bruce Josten.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. McGOVERN. Reclaiming my time, if I may ask the gentleman one additional question, does he anticipate that the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Loan Program will be cut in the new version of the continuing resolution that will be brought before us?

Mr. McGOVERN. Yes.

Mr. McGOVERN. Reclaiming my time, I don't recall that, and I'll check with the minority whip to double-check on that. I guess I'm just trying to provide some information to the Members of the House who are watching what's going on. Am I correct in saying that, as of right now, we don't know when we're going to meet and we don't know when we'll see a final version of the continuing resolution?

Mr. McGOVERN. If I can reclaim my time, the gentleman mentioned our distinguished minority whip on a number of occasions. I don't recall him ever saying that he supported the Republican bill.

Mr. McGOVERN. I'm happy to yield.

Mr. McGOVERN. Reclaiming my time, if I understand the gentleman correctly, we may or may not meet soon. We may or may not vote on it today.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this House is badly broken. This Republican leadership is out of touch. This process is a disgrace. This is not the way the people's business is supposed to work. We are now debating a continuing resolution that has the same objectionable provisions that were rejected yesterday on a bipartisan basis. Plus it has additional provisions that cut jobs. It's even worse. So here's the deal: what's objectionable to people like me is my Republican friends continue to insist on cutting programs that will result in the elimination of American jobs. Their view is simple. If you want to help victims of tornadoes and hurricanes, then we have to pay for it, and we pay for it, in their view, by cutting jobs--not tax cuts for millionaires; not subsidies for Big Oil; not cutting incentives that encourage sending American jobs overseas. What they're advocating is cutting American jobs. Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership, in my opinion, doesn't have a clue. They are obsessed with cutting government at all costs, including programs that help sustain American jobs, including programs that help prevent the elimination of American jobs. And here's the deal. The issue is jobs. They may not want to hear it, but the central issue before our country is jobs. I don't care where you go in this country, what people want to talk about is jobs and the creation of jobs as a way to secure our economy. What we should be talking about on the House floor tonight is jobs. What we should be talking about on the House floor tomorrow is jobs. What we should be talking about every day until the American people are back to work is jobs. Instead, under this Republican leadership, we're debating trivial issues passionately and important ones not at all. I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to, at a minimum, allow Democrats to bring up the President's jobs bill so we can put people back to work. The best way to reduce the debt in this country is to put people back to work. Even a slight drop in the unemployment rate in this country would result in an incredible reduction in our debt. So I urge my colleagues to reject this continuing resolution because it is about eliminating jobs. It's not about creating more jobs; it's about eliminating jobs. Reject this continuing resolution because it plays politics with the lives of American citizens who have been victimized by natural disasters. I urge the Republican leadership to, at least in this one instance, try to be bipartisan. We talk about an open House. We talk about bipartisanship. Here's an opportunity for us to be bipartisan. Let's work together on behalf of the American people. Let's get this bill right, and let's focus on jobs. That's what the American people want. This bill falls far short of that.