Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado, a member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Polis.

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.

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

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. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. He didn't answer any of them last night; so I'm not sure whether we will get many answers here today. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. Does the gentleman have additional speakers?

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.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia, my friend, Mr. Woodall, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself 5 minutes. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, 6 days ago, on Friday, July 1, armed men assassinated a candidate for the city council of Caldas, a town just outside of Medellin, Colombia. He was the ninth local candidate murdered over the last few months. Last Thursday, June 30, Luis Eduardo Gomez, a Colombian journalist and witness for a high profile investigation into links between Colombian politicians and paramilitary groups, was shot down and killed in northwestern Antioquia, an area I visited first in 2001. Gomez was 70 years old. He was returning home at night with his wife when he was gunned down. He was murdered a few days after another witness in the case was killed. And investigators for the Attorney General have said several other witnesses have disappeared. Antonio Mendoza Morales was a councilman in the Caribbean town of San Onofre, Sucre. The 34-year-old Mendoza was also a leader of the Association of Displaced Persons of San Onofre and the Montes de Maria. He was also shot and killed last Thursday night. He is at least the 11th land claims, victims' rights, or displaced persons leader to have been killed in Colombia so far this year. Displaced persons and victims' rights advocates in the Sucre region received a series of death threats during the month of June. We don't know yet whether Mendoza's killing is related to these threats. But I traveled to Sucre in 2003, and can attest to the daily violence suffered by local leaders and displaced persons and campesino organizations. On June 7, Anna Fabricia Cordoba, 51, a leader of the displaced and a land rights activist, was shot dead by an unidentified gunman while riding on a bus in Medellin. She had fled her home in northern Antioquia in 2001 after several of her family members were killed. She had been campaigning for the restitution of lands to Colombia's displaced, and was a member of Ruta Pacifica, the Peaceful Path, a women's organization calling for a negotiated end to the war. In 2008, Ruta Pacifica testified before the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission about Colombia's internally displaced. Cordoba, an Afro-Colombian, had been receiving death threats for months. She had asked the Colombian Government for protection, but had not received any. Her children have received death threats following their mother's death. The Inter-American Commission for Human Rights condemned Cordoba's murder and expressed alarm over the increase in serious threats against Colombian human rights defenders. The situation is getting worse. Every day I receive news about threats, murders, and disappearances of Colombian labor and human rights activists and community leaders. Mr. Speaker, I recite this sad litany of recent murders to impress upon my colleagues that these are real people, real leaders, being murdered every single day in Colombia. Will their murderers be brought to justice or will their deaths be just one more case that remains in impunity? Will the government's promises to their families to seek justice be fulfilled? Will other threatened leaders and their families receive real protection? I hope so, but we simply don't know yet. Promises are easy. Results take time, commitment, and political will to achieve. This morning, some of my colleagues will describe the dangers facing Colombia's labor activists. Colombia still remains the most dangerous place in the world to be a unionist. But violence against Colombia's workers happens in the context of a very threatening landscape for anyone who has the courage to organize their communities, run for public office, or stand up for the rights of the poor, the displaced, and the victims of human rights abuse. The source of violence are all the illegal armed actors, the FARC, the ELN, the paramilitaries, and criminal networks known as BACRIM. And also, sadly, it includes members and units of the Colombian military and police. Before any trade agreement is brought to the Congress for a vote, we owe it to the brave people of Colombia to give the Santos administration time to demonstrate that it can carry out the historic reforms that it has announced as its priorities. We need time to see if the initial steps required by the U.S.-Colombia Labor Action Plan actually result in changes on the ground inside Colombia. Will workers be able to exercise their rights, organize freely, and bargain directly with their employers without the fear of death? And we need time to determine whether violence against rights defenders and community leaders is actually reduced under the leadership of President Santos, and whether greater protections are provided and prove to be effective. We need to see, and we should demand to see, results on the ground before Congress takes up the free trade agreement. Let's use whatever leverage the U.S. has in Colombia to help end a culture of impunity and violence that by any standard is intolerable. I cannot approve an FTA on the basis of good intentions. It must be based on results. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, let me just say trade agreements should be about lifting people up, not keeping them down. 11 Colombian Land Rights, Victims' Rights and Displaced Leaders Murdered in 2011 (6/30/11) February 4 Ana M. Hernandez. Assassinated with her 10 year old son. Community Board member of El Cupadero en Frontino (Antioquia). She was killed in front of her 3 children. March 6 Zoraida Acevedo. Leader of Familias en Accion en Tibu (Norte de Santander). She was shot in front of her husband and her four children. March 19 Hernan Pinto, victims' rights leader in Cundinamarca, he was murdered brutally, clubbed and stoned to death. Sources say the perpetrators were the FARC. March 22 Bernardo Rios Londono, 27, member of the San Jose de Apartado Peace Community, in the Uraba region of northwestern Antioquia. March 23 David Goez and Ever Verbel. Goez was assassinated near a commercial center in Medellin. Verbel was killed in San Onofre (Sucre). April 7 Andres Alvarez Orozco. Campesino leader of Antioquia who had denounced irregular actions by the Public Forces (police) in this region. April 15 Hugo Ulcue. Assassinated when leaving an event in Cauca. He was an indigenous leader who had called for reparations for the massacre of the Naya people. April 27 Martha Gaibao. Leader on land rights and restitution for six communities in Southern Cordoba. She was assassinated as she arrived at her home. June 7 Ana Fabricia Cordoba Cabral, 51, member of Ruta Pacifica de Mujeres and founder of the Association of Leaders Moving Forward for a Human Fabric of Peace/LATEPAZ. Murdered by gunman on motorcycle while she was riding on a bus in Medellin. June 30 Antonio Medoza Morales, councilman in San Onofre (Sucre) and leader of the Association of Displaced Persons of San Onofre and the Montes de Maria. Shot and killed at a billiard hall near his home. Sources: El Tiempo (Bogota, Colombia) 6/8/11; 6/20/11; and 7/1/11.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. My amendment is simple. If FEMA makes a mistake in designing a flood map, communities can be reimbursed for the cost of mounting a successful challenge. If FEMA makes a mistake in mapping a flood area, then they should pay for it. Doing so will result in significant savings for cities and towns and homeowners. And to me, this is something that should be noncontroversial and hopefully wins bipartisan support. Mr. Chair, I was pleased that the Rules Committee made in order my amendment to H.R. 1309. My amendment is simple: if FEMA makes a mistake in designing a flood map, communities can be reimbursed the costs of mounting a successful challenge. Currently, communities that dispute FEMA's flood elevations can hire a private engineering firm to get a ``second opinion'' flood map. While this may sound like an attractive option, it puts small communities in a very difficult financial position. Hiring a private engineering firm is expensive and cost-prohibitive for many small communities. On the one hand, if the community decides that it's too expensive to get a second opinion, homeowners are forced to pay higher, or in some cases, needless flood insurance premiums. On the other hand, if the community does mount a successful challenge to the original FEMA map, homeowners are spared from having to pay the higher flood insurance premiums. But, the town must still pay the costs associated with obtaining that second map. I've heard of many small communities that are forced into this tough situation, including the Town of Holliston in my district. There is substantial evidence to support the case that the FEMA flood map is inaccurate, but town officials are struggling to find a way to pay the estimated $30,000 it would cost to conduct a second engineering study. I feel for these town officials. They want to do the right thing and help their residents, but these small towns are already cash-strapped and cutting funding left and right for essential services like teachers, cops and firefighters. There simply is no money for a legitimate but expensive second opinion map. If FEMA makes a mistake in mapping a flood area, they should pay for it. Doing so would relieve towns like Holliston from the enormous burden of fixing a mistake they did not make and saving residents hundreds of dollars in unnecessary flood insurance premiums. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me, first of all, say that I'm glad the gentleman from Georgia is excited. I'm not quite at that level. I'm okay, but I'm not excited. This is not an open rule. We had an opportunity to have an open rule. We called for a vote. Unfortunately, my friends on the other side of the aisle voted against it. But having said that, there are a lot of different amendments in here that represent a lot of different viewpoints, and so I'm okay with it. So I will begin by saying that. Secondly, I want to share with my colleagues that this is a good bill. And it is not a boondoggle, as the gentlewoman from Michigan referred to it. It is a necessary protection for people. The question was asked, well, why should the government be involved in flood insurance? Well, one of the reasons why is because the private insurance industry has no interest in providing the kind of coverage at an affordable level to people who need it. If there was money to be made, if they thought they could make money, you could bet the private insurance industry would step up and try to fill in the void. But they haven't, and they won't. And so without this, you will end up dealing with these catastrophes with disaster relief funds that Congress would have to approve. And that's not a very efficient or good way to deal with the issue of floods. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to point out that this is an important bill not only because it is bipartisan in nature, but I think there is also a bipartisan consensus that it is important that we move forward with this. Again, I want to commend Mrs. Biggert and the members of the Financial Services Committee. I want to commend Congresswoman Maxine Waters who worked together in a bipartisan way, who produced a bill that passed 54-0. You don't see that very much. And this has been a very contentious Congress, and there have been lots of partisan divides when it has come to voting on bills. But in this one area, there is consensus, which I think is an indication that it will win broad bipartisan support in this Congress. So, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for bringing this rule to the floor. I want to thank all of those who are responsible for the underlying bill and look forward to supporting it. And I hope my colleagues, at a bipartisan level, will support my amendment, which I think is a good amendment. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 4 minutes to a great leader on this issue, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and 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. Speaker, this is one of those rare occasions when the gentleman from Texas and I actually agree on something. I think the underlying bill is a good bill, and I look forward to supporting it. While this rule is not an open rule, and I don't think that we have had an open rule on an authorizing bill since this Congress began, but the gentleman is such a good guy that I'm not going to make a big deal of that. Twenty-five of the 30 amendments that were offered were made in order, so I think we will have a good debate. The rule before us today provides for the reauthorization of the National Flood Insurance Program, NFIP, through September 30, 2016. This program was established in 1968 in response to increasing Federal Government spending for disaster relief. The NFIP was intended to alleviate some of the public's financial burden because the government covered losses generated by the floods in the form of disaster relief payments. With the increase of severe weather in the past few years, the need to reauthorize this program before it expires on September 30 is great. The National Flood Insurance Program, housed within the Federal Emergency Management Agency, has become financially strained following severe hurricanes--including Katrina in 2005, which significantly increased insurance claims. In addition to extending this bill for an additional 5 years, this bill also includes a 3-year delay of the mandatory flood insurance purchase requirement as a result of the new, updated flood maps. This will allow our constituents to be notified if their home is now at risk of flooding and purchase insurance accordingly, by requiring annual notifications to homeowners living in flood zones about the flood risk in their community, the geographical boundaries of the flood zone, the requirement to purchase flood insurance, and a general estimate of what similar homeowners in similar communities typically pay for flood insurance. This bill also provides optional coverage for additional living expenses incurred by homeowners when losses from a flood make their homes unfit to live in. For businesses and commercial properties or multifamily properties, this bill provides optional coverage for losses resulting from any partial or total interruption of the insureds' businesses caused by flood. Mr. Speaker, we saw massive devastation to the southeastern part of our country in 2005, but we also saw the resiliency of the American people. It's no easy task to rebuild your entire life from the ground up. In recognizing the economic reality that having flood coverage could keep families from financial ruin but at the same time add additional and substantial costs to family budgets, this bill allows families to pay flood insurance premiums in installments. This bill will also help our local communities prepare for the worst by authorizing the use of Community Development Block Grant funds for communities to reach out to homeowners about flood insurance rates, mapping and inclusion in flood zones, and by authorizing localities to use Community Development Block Grant funds to supplement existing State or local funding for building code enforcement. The National Flood Insurance Reform Act gives communities the tools they need to prepare, protect and to rebuild. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Rules Committee made in order my amendment to H.R. 1309. I would like to thank the committee for working with me to make this important amendment in order. My amendment is simple. If FEMA makes a mistake in designing a flood map, communities can be reimbursed for the costs of mounting a successful challenge. Currently, communities that dispute FEMA's flood elevations can hire a private engineering firm to get a ``second opinion'' flood map. While this may sound like an attractive option, it puts a lot of small communities in very difficult financial positions. Hiring a private engineering firm is expensive and cost prohibitive for many small communities. On the one hand, if the community decides that it's too expensive to get a second opinion, homeowners are forced to pay higher or, in some cases, needless flood insurance premiums. On the other hand, if the community does mount a successful challenge to the original FEMA map, homeowners are spared from having to pay the higher flood insurance premiums, but the town still must pay the costs associated with obtaining that second map. Now, I've heard of many small communities that are forced into this tough situation, including the town of Holliston, Massachusetts, which is in my district. There is substantial evidence to support the argument that the FEMA map is incorrect, but town officials are struggling to find a way to pay the $30,000 it would cost to conduct a second engineering study. I feel for these town officials. They want to do the right thing and help their residents, but these small towns are already cash-strapped and are cutting funding left and right for essential services like schools and police and firefighters, not to mention infrastructure. There simply is no money for a legitimate but expensive second opinion map. If FEMA makes a mistake in mapping a flood area, then they should pay for it. So I encourage my colleagues to support my amendment. Mr. Speaker, this bill is proof that Congress can work in a bipartisan way. Passed out of the House Committee on Financial Services 54-0, this bipartisan bill is timely with hurricane season just around the corner. It is also important to add that the Congressional Budget Office estimates that enacting H.R. 1309 will have no net impact on direct spending over the 2012-2016 or 2012-2021 periods. I want to commend my colleague from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) for her leadership on this and for working in a bipartisan way and producing what, I think, is a good bill. I look forward to working with her to make sure that this is passed. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I rise in support of the Frank-Holt amendment. This is a modest amendment. Quite frankly, I wish the cut were greater than the cut being proposed here, because I think everybody in this Chamber knows that there is a great deal of waste and abuse that exists within our military spending. We have no-bid defense contracts. We go right down that road of all the contracts that we've divvied out and how wasteful they've been, and we're still building and preserving weapons systems that are remnants of the cold war that even our Joint Chiefs of Staff don't want. So there is savings to be had within the military. The other point I want to make is that, when we talk about national security and national strength, we ought to be talking about making sure that the people in this country can earn a decent living. National security should mean jobs. It should mean the strength of our infrastructure, the quality of our education system, which we are neglecting. My friends on the other side of the aisle want to balance the budget by cutting those very programs that, I think, provide our economic strength. When you go home to your districts, the first thing that people want to talk about is jobs. It is economic security. Why aren't we doing more to create jobs? Why aren't we talking more about jobs here in the Capitol? So I make those two points because I think this amendment is a modest amendment that moves us in the right direction and that moves this discussion in a better direction. At this point, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield to the author of the amendment, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

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

Mr. McGOVERN. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his support of this international imperative. The LRA has terrorized civilians and abducted tens of thousands of children, many of whom have been forced into child soldiering or sex slavery. Its influence spans the border area of south Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and the Central African Republic. It is the deadliest rebel group in Congo and has displaced hundreds of thousands of people across central Africa, including in south Sudan, where U.S. investments in peace and stability are critical as the region establishes independence this Saturday. Mr. Chairman, we could have a decisive impact on seeing one of Africa's most longstanding human rights crises finally brought to an end by implementing the administration's plan. I yield back to the gentleman from Nebraska in the hopes that we implement this strategy.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I want to thank the gentleman for raising the issue of cost, but I want my colleagues to understand what we are actually paying for military operations in Afghanistan. We are borrowing $10 billion per month, $2.3 billion per week, $328.3 million per day, $13.7 million per hour, $228,000 per minute. And we are having a debate right now over how we get the debt under control. And these borrowed moneys are not even a subject of discussion. If you want to get the debt down, you've got to deal with these war costs. And I can't believe that for those who are advocating the status quo that they don't want to pay for it, it's going on our credit card, and I think that is unacceptable. This is an enormous cost to us here in our own country. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman for his comments. I just want to respond to something that Mr. Lewis said, who is a good friend of mine and whom I respect very much. He talked about the need for us to be cautious. Well, I wish we were more cautious where we committed our young men and women in the field of battle. It is politicians that put our service men and women in harm's way, and it is politicians that keep this war going. The fact of the matter is that we have an unreliable partner in Afghanistan. President Karzai is corrupt. He fixed the last election. I mean, he is denigrating our service men and women. When I was over there, one of our soldiers from Massachusetts said to me, What bothers me most is we are risking our lives to try to help improve the quality of life of people in this country, and the President of this country, Mr. Karzai, denigrates us, diminishes what we do, calls us names, accused the United States of using nuclear weapons in Afghanistan. The Massachusetts soldier said to me, Do you know what that feels like? Look, we need to rethink our policy in Afghanistan. Nobody is talking about walking away. What we're saying is that the current policy of counterinsurgency is going broke.

Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentleman yield?