Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree), a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlelady from Texas.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I actually agree with the gentlelady in my disappointment that the President has decided to submit a supplemental bill to fund this war in Afghanistan. But I think it is not--it is a little bit, well, unfair for her to criticize President Obama when President Bush did this routinely. And we have spent over $1 trillion, $1 trillion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And the vast majority of that money is not paid for. It's all borrowed. We're not paying for it. Our kids will pay for it and our grandkids and our great grandkids. And, you know, so I find it also a little bit puzzling that we're having this, we had this debate earlier today over the extension of unemployment benefits for the millions of people who are unemployed in this country due to this terrible economy. And my friends on the other side of the aisle said, well, we can't afford it. We can't afford to pay for it so we're going to deny these citizens who have fallen on hard times the ability to get unemployment compensation. Yet, when it comes to funneling money to the corrupt Karzai regime, we're a bottomless pit. So I think all of us, Republicans and Democrats, need to come together and figure out how to get this right. And I hope that the gentlelady will join with me and my colleague, Dave Obey, in supporting our amendment asking for the President to develop a plan consistent with his statement that we will begin the withdrawal of our forces in July of 2011. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me say when the Democrats were in the minority, we as a party submitted a budget every single year. The Republicans, to my knowledge, have not done that. Mr. Ryan, my colleague and friend on the Budget Committee, did submit a budget under his name, and perhaps if he wants to make that budget in order, I am sure our leadership would love to have a debate on a budget that turns Medicare and Social Security into a voucher system. But the budget document that the Democrats have put forward would cap discretionary spending at $1.2 trillion, which is $7 trillion less than what President Obama proposed. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes).

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, at this moment we have close to 100,000 U.S. servicemen and -women deployed in Afghanistan. The war has raged for nearly 9 years, and our mission has changed at least that many times. We have lost over 1,000 of our brave soldiers. Thousands more have been wounded. We are spending hundreds of billions of dollars in borrowed money. In 9 years, neither George W. Bush nor Barack Obama nor this Congress has seen fit to pay for the war. That's a burden we are placing on our children and our grandchildren. All of us, every single one of us, Republicans and Democrats alike, are dedicated to defeating al Qaeda and holding to account those who committed the horrible atrocities on September 11. What we are proposing today in no way lessens our commitment to that fight, but our current policy in Afghanistan is deeply flawed. We are getting sucked deeper and deeper and deeper into a war with no clear end. It is a war that will continue to claim the lives of our soldiers; it is a war that will continue to bankrupt us, and it is a war that will not enhance our national security. My friends, we can no longer go along to get along. All of us have a responsibility to make sure that we are doing the right thing. It's not just the President's war. It's our war, too. We are the ones who voted to put our soldiers in harm's way, and we are the ones who keep funding it. My friends on the other side of the aisle who question, Why are we asking questions? Why don't we just rubber-stamp what the Senate did or rubber-stamp what the President sent us? Well, the reason why we shouldn't do that is because that's not our job. We're supposed to deliberate, and we are supposed to ask questions, and we're supposed to figure out whether we're doing the right thing. They are our constituents, our family members who are in harm's way. We need to let this administration know that we want a way out. We want a plan. That's not a radical idea. We want a plan. We want an exit strategy. For the last 30 years, we said, Never again will we commit our Armed Forces without a clearly defined mission, and that means a mission with a beginning, a middle, a transition period, and an end. Well, that's all we're asking for today, a clearly defined mission. What's the plan? We are dealing with the worst economy since the Great Depression. Our citizens, our constituents are hurting, yet we're told that we cannot afford to extend unemployment benefits to out-of-work Americans because we cannot afford it. We are told we can't help more families afford a college education or rebuild our roads and our bridges. But when it comes to supporting a corrupt, incompetent Karzai government, we're supposed to be a bottomless pit. Don't ask any questions. Just give them all the money they want. Look the other way. That's not right. That's not our job. I don't have all the answers, but I do know that it makes absolutely no sense to quietly endure the status quo. Ending a war is not easy. It requires courage and it demands action. What this amendment requests is action, a strong signal to the administration that we want a plan. It also signals the Congress will no longer just sit back and hope for the best. To those who say that asking the Afghan Government to stand up and take responsibility is somehow a bad idea, I would remind them that when we signaled to Iraq that we had a withdrawal plan, officials there actually began to act like a real government. Ensuring that the President gives us a plan by next April so we can figure out by July what to do with the money slated for the war is not too much to ask. We require, we deserve, and we should demand the information we need to do our jobs. Let me just close with this: There is a small sliver of America that is directly impacted by this war in Iraq, and those are the people who are fighting the war and who have family members who are fighting the war. The rest of us are asked to do nothing, absolutely nothing. We are not even asked to pay for it, hundreds of billions of dollars in borrowed money. Well, the least we could do for these brave men and women whom we have put in harm's way is debate this issue to make sure we're getting it right, to make sure we're not sending these people on a mission that commits itself to a war with no end. That is what we're asking for here today, a clearly defined mission. I ask all of you, every one of us here, to reengage in this policy. This issue has been on the back burner for too long. We're at war. Our constituents are dying. Each and every day we read about more people who are killed in Afghanistan. We have an obligation to do better. This policy is deeply flawed. We need a way out, and I ask all of you today to vote for the McGovern-Obey-Jones amendment. I yield back the balance of my time. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record two articles that appeared in the Washington Post. One is entitled, ``U.S. Indirectly Paying Afghan Warlords as Part of Security Contract.'' The other is entitled, ``U.S. Officials Say Karzai Aides are Derailing Corruption Cases Involving Elite.'' [From the Washington Post, June 22, 2010] U.S. Indirectly Paying Afghan Warlords as Part of Security Contract (By Karen DeYoung) The U.S. military is funding a massive protection racket in Afghanistan, indirectly paying tens of millions of dollars to warlords, corrupt public officials and the Taliban to ensure safe passage of its supply convoys throughout the country, according to congressional investigators. The security arrangements, part of a $2.16 billion transport contract, violate laws on the use of private contractors, as well as Defense Department regulations, and ``dramatically undermine'' larger U.S. objectives of curtailing corruption and strengthening effective governance in Afghanistan, a report released late Monday said. The report describes a Defense Department that is well aware that some of the money paid to contractors winds up in the hands of warlords and insurgents. Military logisticians on the ground are focused on getting supplies where they are needed and have ``virtually no understanding of how security is actually provided'' for the local truck convoys that transport more than 70 percent of all goods and materials used by U.S. troops. Alarms raised by prime trucking contractors were met by the military ``with indifference and inaction,'' the report said. ``The findings of this report range from sobering to shocking,'' Rep. John Tierney (D-Mass.) wrote in an introduction to the 79-page report, titled ``Warlord, Inc., Extortion and Corruption Along the U.S. Supply Chain in Afghanistan.'' The report comes as the number of U.S. casualties is rising in the Afghan war, and public and congressional support is declining. The administration has been on the defensive in recent weeks, insisting that the slow progress of anti- Taliban offensives in Helmand province and the city of Kandahar does not mean that more time is needed to assess whether President Obama's strategy is working. ``I think it's much too early to draw a negative conclusion,'' said a senior administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. ``I think there's more positive than negative. We're heading toward a year-end assessment, which will be a big one for us.'' The review was set when Obama announced in December that he would send an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan and begin to withdraw them in July 2011. Tierney is chairman of the national security subcommittee of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, whose majority staff spent six months preparing the report. A proponent of a smaller U.S. military footprint in Afghanistan and targeted attacks on insurgents, Tierney said in an interview Monday that he hopes the report will help members of Congress ``analyze whether they think this is the most effective way to go about dealing with terrorism. Or the most cost-effective way.'' The report's conclusions will be introduced at a hearing Tuesday at which senior military and defense officials are scheduled to testify. The report says that all evidence and findings were made available to Republicans on the subcommittee. A spokesman for Rep. Jeff Flake (Ariz.), the ranking Republican, said the lawmaker will not comment until he has seen the entire report. In testimony shortly after Obama's strategy announcement, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said that ``much of the corruption'' in Afghanistan has been fueled by billions of dollars' worth of foreign money spent there, ``and one of the major sources of funding for the Taliban is the protection money.'' Military officials said that they have begun several corruption investigations in Afghanistan and that a task force has been named, headed by Navy Rear Adm. Kathleen Dussault, director of logistics and supply operations for the chief of naval operations and former head of the Baghdad- based joint contracting command for Iraq and Afghanistan. Rear Adm. Gregory J. Smith, communications chief for U.S. and NATO forces in Kabul, said that the entire Tierney report has not been examined but that Dussault will be ``reviewing every aspect of our contracting process and recommending changes to avoid our contribution to what is arguably a major source of revenue that feeds the cycle of corruption.'' The U.S. military imports virtually everything it uses in Afghanistan--including food, water, fuel and ammunition--by road through Pakistan or Central Asia to distribution hubs at Bagram air base north of Kabul and a similar base outside Kandahar. From there, containers are loaded onto trucks provided by Afghan contractors under the $2.16 billion Host Nation Trucking contract. Unlike in the Iraq war, the security and vast majority of the trucks are provided by Afghans, a difference that Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, has praised as promoting local entrepreneurship. The trucks distribute the material to more than 200 U.S. military outposts across Afghanistan, most of them in the southern and eastern parts of the country where roads are largely controlled by warlords and insurgent groups. The report found no direct evidence of payoffs to the Taliban, but one trucking program manager estimated that $1.6 million to $2 million per week goes to the insurgents. Most of the eight companies approved for the contract are Afghan-owned, but they serve largely as brokers for subcontractors that provide the trucks and security for the convoys, which often contain hundreds of vehicles. According to the congressional report, the U.S. officers charged with supervising the deliveries never travel off bases to determine how the system works or to ensure that U.S. laws and regulations are followed. The report describes a system in which subcontractors--most of them well-known warlords who maintain their own militias-- charge $1,500 to $15,000 per truck to supply guards and help secure safe passage through territory they control. The most powerful of them, known as Commander Ruhullah, controls passage along Highway One, the principal route between Kabul and Kandahar, under the auspices of Watan Risk Management, a company owned by two of Afghan President Hamid Karzai's cousins. Overall management of who wins the security subcontracts, it said, is often controlled by local political powerbrokers such as Karzai's half brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, head of the Kandahar provincial council. Relatively unknown before U.S. forces arrived in Afghanistan in fall 2001, Ruhullah is ``prototypical of a new class of warlord in Afghanistan,'' the report said. Unlike more traditional warlords, he has no political aspirations or tribal standing but ``commands a small army of over 600 guards.'' The ``single largest security provider for the U.S. supply chain in Afghanistan,'' Ruhullah ``readily admits to bribing governors, police chiefs and army generals,'' the report said. In a meeting with congressional investigators in Dubai, he complained about ``the high cost of ammunition in Afghanistan--he says he spends $1.5 million per month on rounds for an arsenal that includes AK-47s, heavy machine guns and RPGs,'' or rocket-propelled grenades. It added: ``Villagers along the road refer to him as `the Butcher.' '' Despite his ``critical role,'' the report said, ``nobody from the Department of Defense or the U.S. intelligence community has ever met with him,'' other than special operations forces who have twice arrested and released him, and he ``is largely a mystery to both the U.S. government and the contractors that employ his services.'' Defense regulations and laws promulgated following difficulties with private security contractors in Iraq limit the weaponry that contractors can use and require detailed incident reports every time shots are fired. But such reports are rarely, if ever, filed, investigators said. Another trucking contractor described a ``symbiotic'' relationship between security providers such as Ruhullah and the Taliban, whose fighters operate in the same space, and said that the Taliban is paid not to cause trouble for the convoys. ``Many firefights are really negotiations over the fee,'' the report said. Among its recommendations, the report calls on the military to establish ``a direct line of authority and accountability over the private security companies that guard the supply chain'' and to provide ``the personnel and resources required to manage and oversee its trucking and security contracts in Afghanistan.''

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), a cosponsor of this amendment.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the McGovern- Obey-Jones amendment. Quite simply, all this amendment does is make sure that the President and the Congress be accountable to the American people, our troops, and their families about what our policy in Afghanistan is going to be from July 2011 onward. At this time I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), chairman of the Appropriations Committee.

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, my friend from Georgia's proposal represents less than one-tenth of 1 percent of what was borrowed to pay for the Iraq and Afghanistan war. Let's get serious here. And when I see that poster that says ``YouCut,'' what they don't show you is what they're cutting and what they want to cut is Social Security, and the minority leader made that very clear in his interview, that they're going to basically take money out of Social Security to pay for the wars. Our senior citizens who have fought in wars, who have worked in our factories, who have raised our families are being told to pay for the wars. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, just in response to the last speaker, this gimmick that the Republicans have brought to the floor is really just that--a gimmick. $120 million a year they're going to save. Let me just put that in perspective. Just two policies dating from the Bush administration--tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan-- accounted for over $500 billion of the deficit in 2009, and will account for almost $7 trillion of deficits in 2009 through 2019, including the associated debt services cost. We need to get serious about dealing with the debt and dealing with our deficit. But let's make one thing clear: When Mr. Bush came to power, President Clinton left him a budget surplus. No deficit. We're paying down the debt. When Mr. Bush left office, he left Barack Obama with a record deficit that he is now trying to dig us out of in the midst of one of the worst economies since the Great Depression. So when they get on the floor with these gimmicks, let's understand what they are--they are gimmicks. If you want to get serious about reducing the debt, then let's get serious about it. I will tell you one thing I do disagree with him on very strongly. Again, I'll go back to the article I referred to before when Minority Leader Boehner talked about raising the retirement age of Social Security to 70 and taking that money and not putting it in Social Security to keep that program solvent, but then moving it to pay for the wars. I think that is wrong. I think our seniors deserve better than that. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Bean).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, the American people are frustrated. They're frustrated that we haven't passed a Wall Street regulatory reform bill sooner. I think my friends on the other side of the aisle just don't get it. I don't think they understand that an unregulated Wall Street with no checks and balances will produce another economic crisis like the one we are trying to dig ourselves out of right now. The Republican minority leader, Mr. Boehner, said, This is killing an ant with a nuclear weapon. An ant? It was the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. America has lost 8 million jobs and $17 trillion of retirement savings and net worth. The irresponsible fiscal policies of the previous administration--and a lot of my friends on the other side-- were much more than an ant to the American workers and their families and small businesses. They have suffered greatly because of Wall Street's excesses. And this notion that somehow we should just let Wall Street continue unregulated I think demonstrates that my friends on the other side of the aisle just don't get it. Madam Speaker, this rule would also allow for the same-day consideration of an extension of unemployment benefits to millions of Americans who have lost their jobs. Americans are frustrated because they can't understand why Congress can't just approve this. What is the big deal? My friends on the other side of the aisle say, Well, we can't afford it. Yet when it comes to war or when it comes to tax cuts for wealthy people, we are a bottomless pit. But the fact of the matter is, we have an obligation to help those who are suffering because of this bad economy, and hopefully we will do that. Madam Speaker, let me finally say that when we enact this bill today, this will be tough legislation that will end an era without accountability for Wall Street and big banks that cost us 8 million jobs. It will rein in big banks and their big bonuses. It will put an end to taxpayer bailouts and the idea of too big to fail and protect and empower consumers to make the best decisions on homes, credit cards, and our own financial future. The American people want us to pass this bill. They want us to pass an extension of unemployment benefits, and hopefully by the end of today, we will do both. So, Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 1487 provides for consideration of a rule that allows for the same-day consideration of a conference report to accompany H.R. 4173 and a measure that includes the subject matter addressed by H.R. 4213. Additionally, this rule allows for legislation to be considered under suspension of the rules through July 3, 2010, and allows for the consideration of concurrent resolutions providing for adjournment during the month of July. Mr. Speaker, this is a simple and straightforward rule. It allows the rules for the Wall Street reform conference report in either the tax extenders jobs bill or subject matters related to the jobs bill, such as unemployment insurance, to be considered on the same legislative day that they report it out of the Rules Committee. This is an important step that must be taken if we are to pass these bills before the Senate adjourns for the funeral of Senator Byrd. This bill allows for clear actions, up-or-down votes on the conference report to prevent Wall Street from melting down like it did 2 years ago and a bill to provide unemployment compensation to people who have lost their jobs who cannot find work in this economy. Mr. Speaker, these are clear-cut choices. Either you support fixing Wall Street or you don't. Do you believe unemployed Americans looking for work should receive unemployment benefits to help them pay for their mortgages, utilities, and food for their families or do you not? So far my Republican friends have been on the wrong side of these issues. I can only hope that they change their minds and decide to put everyday Americans first instead of continuing to play politics with these issues. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, my objection about Mr. Boehner's statements with regard to Social Security was that he wanted to take the money from Social Security and pay for the war. Not put it into a Social Security trust fund, not to shore-up Social Security. That's what bothers me, is their continued determination to undermine the Social Security system. Mr. Boehner said in his interview that we should raise the retirement age to 70, take their money, and put it towards the war. For 8 years, they abdicated their responsibility to pay for the war. Now they want to pay for it on the backs of senior citizens. That's what I object to. That's what I object to. And the other thing, Mr. Speaker, is that we hear time and time again, Well, we all want to deal with the excesses in Wall Street. We all want to do this; we all want to do that. But when it comes time to do anything meaningful, they are missing in action. So this is an opportunity for us to get something done, and I urge my colleague to support the bill. At this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, my Republican friends have consistently been against reining in the excesses of Wall Street. I'm not shocked that they have that view because they've always had that view. I am dismayed. But the American people want us to pass a regulatory reform bill. They also want us to extend unemployment benefits to those who are out of work. Unfortunately, my Republican colleagues have been blocking that. So that's what this rule does, allows us to actually do something, and do many things, quite frankly, that the American people want us to do. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the previous speaker didn't talk about the Wall Street regulatory reform bill that my friends on the Republican side of the aisle have been trying to block. The minority leader in a recent interview said that the bill that we are bringing forth in Congress, this is killing an ant with a nuclear weapon. I find it disturbing that anyone would characterize this financial crisis that was brought on by Wall Street as an ant. I mean it impacted millions and millions of our citizens. I will ask to put this interview that appeared in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review in the Record. In that same interview, and I think it's important for my colleagues to know, the minority leader talked about his belief that we should raise the retirement age for Social Security to 70. Clearly, we need to talk about how we keep Social Security solvent. But he then went further to say that we should take that money and not put it into Social Security but pay for the war. So our senior citizens should pay for this war, the rest of us don't, but the burden once again falls on our senior citizens. We know what they're about. We know what their beliefs are. And given an opportunity to take back control of the House, we know that they will try to undo Wall Street regulatory reform and try to undercut Social Security. Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it if I were not interrupted while I am speaking. And we know what they believe. And it is in this interview which we will put in the Record. [From the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, June 29, 2010] Obama's Good for GOP, Boehner Says (By Mike Wereschagin and Salena Zito) House Republican Leader John Boehner, the Ohio Republican with his eye on Speaker Nancy Pelosi's gavel, said the tide is turning the GOP's way. ``The American people have written off the Democrats,'' Boehner said Monday in an interview with Tribune-Review editors and reporters. ``They're willing to look at us again.'' Boehner stopped short of predicting Republicans would gain the 39 seats they need to retake control of Congress, but he said a backlash against President Obama's policies has energized Republican voters more than Democrats. Boehner said voters are angry at a government they believe is overreaching and indifferent. University of Virginia political scientist Isaac Wood said excitement among tea party protesters might not carry over to the electorate as a whole. ``While the enthusiasm of tea party types may drive them to the polls and boost Republicans, it does not yet seem that huge waves of new voters will be flocking to the polls,'' Wood said. Boehner said the protests are emblematic of deep voter anger against Washington's leaders. ``They're snuffing out the America that I grew up in,'' Boehner said. ``Right now, we've got more Americans engaged in their government than at any time in our history. There's a political rebellion brewing, and I don't think we've seen anything like it since 1776.'' The health care law passed in March ``pushed most Americans over the edge,'' Boehner said. If Republicans retake control of the House, Boehner promised a vote on a bill repealing the health care law and replacing it with a scaled-down package of tax breaks and court reforms. Democrats likely would maintain control of the Senate, and Obama could veto the proposal, all but eliminating its chances of succeeding. ``We are going to do everything we can to make sure that this law and this program never really takes effect,'' Boehner said. One option would be to repeal the $534 billion in Medicare cuts, which pay for more than half of the law's provisions. ``They're going to need money from the Congress to hire these 20,000-plus bureaucrats they need to hire to make this program work. They're not going to get one dime from us.'' Boehner criticized the financial regulatory overhaul compromise reached last week between House and Senate negotiators as an overreaction to the financial crisis that triggered the recession. The bill would tighten restrictions on lending, create a consumer protection agency with broad oversight power and give the government an orderly way to dissolve the largest financial institutions if they run out of money. ``This is killing an ant with a nuclear weapon,'' Boehner said. What's most needed is more transparency and better enforcement by regulators, he said. Allan H. Meltzer, a political economy professor at Carnegie Mellon University, said the financial bill ``does nothing to restore integrity to the mortgage market by correcting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the bill does not eliminate `too big to fail.' '' Boehner said Obama overreacted to the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The spill might warrant a ``pause'' in deepwater drilling, but Obama's blanket ban on drilling in the gulf--which a judge overturned last week--could devastate the region's economy, he said. Louisiana State University scientists estimate the ban could have affected more than 10,000 jobs. Boehner had praise, however, for Obama's troop surge in Afghanistan and stepped-up drone attacks in Pakistan. He declined to list any benchmarks he has for measuring progress in the nine-year war, at a time of increasing violence and Obama's replacement of Gen. Stanley McChrystal with Gen. David Petraeus. Ensuring there's enough money to pay for the war will require reforming the country's entitlement system, Boehner said. He said he'd favor increasing the Social Security retirement age to 70 for people who have at least 20 years until retirement, tying cost-of-living increases to the consumer price index rather than wage inflation and limiting payments to those who need them. ``We need to look at the American people and explain to them that we're broke,'' Boehner said. ``If you have substantial non-Social Security income while you're retired, why are we paying you at a time when we're broke? We just need to be honest with people.'' At this point I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).