Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself 2 minutes, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, we don't even need lectures from the Republicans on fiscal discipline. We did it, and we're going to do it again. And the President and the leadership here of this House has outlined how we're going to do it. But I want to point out that my colleagues on the other side don't like statutory PAYGO. They don't want to pay for tax cuts for rich people or for corporations or for big oil companies because they have a different plan, and their plan is to reprise the Bush-era proposal to privatize Medicare and Social Security. In the Budget Committee the other day, the ranking Republican introduced his plan, which makes it very clear that he wants to privatize Social Security and Medicare. Ezra Klein of The Washington Post writes, This proposal would take Medicare from costing an expected 14.3 percent of GDP in 2080 to less than 4 percent. That's trillions of dollars not going to health care for seniors. The audacity is breathtaking. The Congressional Budget Office said of that proposal that starting in 2021, new enrollees would no longer receive coverage through their current program but instead would be given a voucher with which to purchase private health insurance. CBO says traditional benefits would be reduced below those scheduled on the current laws for many workers who are aged 55 or younger in 2011. Peter Orszag, the Director of OMB, says, The proposal takes the Medicare program and, for those 55 and below, turns it into a voucher program and that it introduces individual accounts privatizing Social Security. Madam Speaker, we have some challenges before us, but I would like to think that we can all agree that balancing the budget by letting Medicare wither on the vine and privatizing Social Security and destroying two of the most important social programs in the history of the country is not the way to go. And so that is the choice.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds. We do what's fiscally responsible and enact the statutory PAYGO and pay as you go. If you want to increase education programs or programs for health care, you have to find an offset. You have to cut another program to find additional revenue. If you want to give tax cuts to rich people, you've got to pay for it. But I think that's the responsible way to go. Going their way, going after Medicare and Social Security, is the wrong way. We've seen this movement before. We don't want to go there. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, it has now been 2 weeks since a 7.0 earthquake struck Haiti on the afternoon of January 12. Over these past 14 days, we have seen pictures of the devastation of Port-au-Prince and the surrounding communities. Estimates of the number of dead continue to rise. And the injured in the capital alone is already in the tens of thousands, many needing sophisticated medical care. People live in the streets and open spaces, fearful of the daily aftershocks. The very basics of life, water, food, and shelter are absent or in short supply. We watch in anguish as we learn about the potential number of newly orphaned children in a country that already had around 400,000 orphans. The Washington Post ran a story on Saturday about how 75 percent of the schools have been destroyed and the deaths of so many teachers and students. Nearly every Haitian family in the affected areas suffered the loss of at least one loved one, and nearly every UN, international agency, and NGO operating in the area suffered devastating losses among their Haitian and international staff. And while our own U.S. Embassy staff and aid agencies worked around the clock to respond to the crisis, each and every one of them are also dealing with their own shock and grief over lost family members and Haitian and U.S. colleagues. In my congressional district, Mr. Speaker, Britney Gengel, the daughter of Len and Cherylann Gengel from Rutland, Massachusetts, remains missing. She is among the approximately 200 Haitian and foreign nationals who were in the Hotel Montana when the earthquake struck. She was part of a student team from Florida's Lynn University in Haiti working with Food for the Poor. In the few days that she was in Haiti, she had already emailed her parents to tell them that she felt that she had found her life's calling. Hundreds of search and rescue workers have been active day and night at the Hotel Montana, including U.S. teams from Fairfax, Virginia; Miami-Dade; and Los Angeles counties. One rescue worker, talking with Britney's father, spoke movingly about how this was one of the worst sites he had ever worked on, and if his daughter were trapped here, he wouldn't give up on finding her either. The compassion and empathy of the rescue workers and every member of our U.S. Embassy team are palpable, and their commitment to all victims' families is total. We see on our television and read in the papers and online of the generosity and resilience of the human spirit: people helping people, comforting one another, sacrificing for the well-being of one another. We often forget how much the Haitian people are helping one another as we struggle to provide and get aid to them. Governments, international agencies, NGOs, corporations, and individuals have responded and mobilized as never before. On Friday evening, I was in my hometown of Worcester, Massachusetts, at an event entitled Worcester Cares for Haiti, to mobilize donations from our local community. And I am sure that many Members of this House have been at similar events in their own districts. Aid is pouring into Haiti to reach the more than 3 million people directly affected by the earthquake. It is flying in to Santo Domingo and Barahona airports in the Dominican Republic and being trucked overland in vast convoys. It is landing at the Port-au-Prince airport, which now receives over 100 flights day and night. And thanks to our Navy and Coast Guard, the destroyed Port-au-Prince docks are now 30 percent operational. I want to thank all the nations of the world that have responded so generously. I especially want to thank our hemispheric neighbors, many of whom annually suffer from natural disasters and still struggle to overcome centuries of poverty. They have been particularly generous, from Argentina, Brazil, and Chile to Colombia, Cuba, Mexico, and so many others. And a very special thank you to the Government and people of the Dominican Republic. To my own government, Secretary Clinton, Secretary Gates, Administrator Raj Shah, Secretary Napolitano, and all of the agencies, officers, and staff here in Washington and on the ground in Haiti, who, when faced with a Herculean task, have more than risen to the occasion. And I want to say how grateful I am for all that you have done, are doing, and will be doing in the days, weeks, and months to come. I have seen firsthand your commitment, compassion, expertise, and professionalism. I am sure that mistakes have been made, but no one wants the aid to arrive more quickly and get to those who need it more than the U.S. personnel on the ground in Haiti. For myself, I have never been more proud of my government or more grateful for the people who serve in it. Mr. Speaker, I will insert into the Record a story that appeared in The Washington Post entitled, ``Death toll growing at Port-au-Prince's Hotel Montana, once a symbol of stability.'' [From the Washington Post, Jan. 24, 2010] Death Toll Growing at Port-au-Prince's Hotel Montana, Once a Symbol of Stability (By William Booth) Before the earthquake, the Hotel Montana was the place to be in Haiti. During coups and crises, it provided air- conditioned shelter from the political storms for the diplomats, spies and aid workers--and a few heavy-duty criminals--who gathered nightly at the News Bar under a towering mahogany tree to sip rum sours concocted by Monsieur Lauren, known as the best barman in the country. To many foreigners, as well as the Haitian elite, the Montana stood for security and stability in a country that often lacked both. Now the Port-au-Prince landmark lies in ruins, as families of missing American, Canadian and French citizens press their embassies for any news of life at the scene of the most concentrated international search-and- rescue effort mounted since the Jan. 12 quake. It does not look good. As body identification teams proceed with their grim assignment, the list of the dead is growing-- posted on a tree in the hotel's circular drive because the reception desk is buried under rubble. Most reporters are being kept away as workers in white biohazard suits pull bodies out and then stumble off to vomit in the bushes. ``Except for miracles, hope is unfortunately fading,'' Elisabeth Byrs, a spokeswoman for the United Nations' Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, said Saturday. Some rescue workers have said privately that too many resources have been deployed at the Montana, at the expense of searches elsewhere, and that the U.S. and other governments have focused more attention on those missing at the hotel than on Haitian survivors. A Facebook page, Haiti Earthquake Hotel Montana, had more than 13,000 members as of Saturday evening and is filled with news, prayers, frustration--and photos of those probably lost in the quake. The posts are poignant: ``Diane Cave, Room 220, may have been on way to gym'' or ``David Apperson last seen in lobby.'' Some people post messages of support not only for the families but also for the missing. It is not as strange as it might seem. Cellphone service, disrupted at first, has improved. Someone in the rubble could have received e-mail. The affiliations of the missing tell part of the story. Many guests at the Montana were working for organizations such as Food for the Poor, Compassion International and the United Methodist Committee on Relief. A dozen students from Lynn University in Boca Raton, Fla., were here volunteering with Food for the Poor. Four of them, all women, are missing, along with two faculty members who accompanied them. Angel Aloma, executive director of Food for the Poor, stood in the driveway in the gathering darkness, hugging Gerthe Cardoso, one of the hotel's owners. The two were going through names of staff members, with Aloma asking whether they were alive and Cardoso answering--yes, no, yes. ``These were not employees, they were family,'' Cardoso said. ``Our accountant. Our waiters. Some had been with us for 15 or 20 years. They came to weddings, birthdays, funerals.'' Aloma asked after the famous bartender. ``He is gone,'' Cardoso said, her eyes filling with tears. ``Oh, Lauren!'' ``Our staff member LeAnn Chong, they saved her after 17 hours of digging,'' Aloma said. ``They had to cut off her hair to get her out.'' Many survivors lost far more. Rescue teams describe the work at the Montana as ``highly technical'' and ``medically extreme.'' Some rescues took 24 hours. Buried survivors subsisted on a trickle of their own urine until rescuers could get an intravenous needle into dehydrated veins. One survivor spent four days in a painful crouch. Some heard other people's last words, their last breaths. The Rev. Clinton Rabb, in Haiti for a meeting with Methodist aid workers, was freed Jan. 15 after a French surgeon sawed through one leg at the knee and the other at the ankle. Still conscious, Rabb emerged from a tunnel dug into the rubble, like a miner being pulled from a collapsed shaft, and was whisked away in a Navy helicopter. He died last Sunday in a Florida hospital. Help from an iPhone app For nine days, an intense rescue effort took place at the Montana, with teams from Fairfax County, France, Chile, Brazil, Colombia and elsewhere working sections. Throughout Haiti, more than 50 teams had rescued 132 people by Saturday. U.S. teams took part in 47 rescues. Some of the most dramatic were at the Montana. Dan Woolley was in Haiti with Compassion International making a video about poor children. He had just returned to the hotel that Tuesday afternoon when the 7.0-magnitude quake brought the 145-room hotel crashing down. Woolley was trapped in a space by an elevator shaft. It was pitch black, but he used his iPhone first-aid app to treat his leg fracture. He lost his glasses but used his digital single-lens reflex camera to focus and both devices to create a weak glow. ``He used the little light he had to write letters to his wife and his kids,'' said Raul Perla of the Fairfax team that helped French rescuers pull him out 60 hours later. ``Can you imagine?'' Other people, just a few feet away, have not been rescued. A colleague of Woolley's, David Hames, was last seen 20 feet from the elevator shaft where Woolley was found. ``David is an amazing family man, the host and creator of the kids' show `Cranium's Ark,' much loved by hundreds, maybe thousands,'' a friend, Melanie Dobson, said by e-mail. The family-owned Montana, built in 1946 in the hills of Port-au-Prince with just 12 rooms, had grown into a sprawling compound with shops, a swimming pool and conference facilities. Now rescue workers store oxygen tanks in the half-empty pool. On the lawn is a makeshift shower. Piles of rotting meal rations sit by the fabled News Bar. Beside the conference room stairs, a man in a light-blue shirt, pressed flat by the roof, lies like a flower between the pages of a book. The place reeks. `It's a little miracle' The president of Lynn University, Kevin M. Ross, pressed this week for the return of remains, including those of the four Lynn students missing in the Montana. ``This is needed for every grieving father, son, mother, daughter, friend and neighbor who is aching at this very moment for a phone call,'' Ross said. ``A missing family member, whether alive or dead, must be returned to his or her loved ones.'' Last week, rumors spread in Port-au-Prince that a popular Montana co-owner, Nadine Cardoso-Riedl, had been killed in her office. Then, just as suddenly, word spread that she was alive. ``We had a little dog, a beagle, that was up on the roof by the terrace, and he alerted, he picked up a scent, but when we brought other dogs to confirm, they couldn't smell her,'' said Camilo Monroy of the Colombian Civil Defense rescue squad. ``We went back the next day, and the same beagle smelled her, and we called, and someone answered. We brought over her son, and he said, 'I think that is my mother down there.' `` The Colombians and other teams dug one tunnel, then a second. Cardoso-Riedl responded, saying two other people were near her. One was perhaps a boy. Sometimes she was lucid, sometimes she appeared to lose consciousness and could not assist the rescuers when they asked: ``Are we close? Can you hear us?'' More than 100 hours after her hotel fell down on her, she was pulled out. ``It's a little miracle,'' her husband, Reinhard Riedl, told reporters. ``She's one tough cookie. She is indestructible.'' Her sister, Gerthe, said Nadine had been kidnapped in Haiti a few years ago and held captive for 15 days. ``You have no idea what it takes to survive here,'' she said.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz- Balart). All time yielded during consideration of this rule is for debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume. General Leave

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, in closing, let me say a couple of things. One is that this is a good rule and it should be approved. Secondly, and I say this with respect to my friends on the other side of the aisle, when they talk about sunshine, it's laughable. When you compare the transparency and the openness of this Democratic Congress to the way this place was run when they were in charge, there is no comparison. I remember one night, after a conference report was completed and when all of the signatures were on the conference report, when they snuck in a special provision to provide special immunity to drug companies. That's the kind of transparency and openness that existed when they were in control. On the health care bills, they've been on the Web. The House bill has been on the Web, and the Senate bill has been on the Web. Even the Senate read it verbatim. So there has never been as much openness and transparency in any Congress as we've seen in this Congress. When my friend from Florida talks about the deficit, boy, what a short memory. When Bill Clinton left office, he had eliminated the deficit, and we had started paying down the debt, and we left George Bush, Dick Cheney and my Republican friends with a surplus. Through their reckless policies--tax breaks for millionaires, special privileges for Wall Street and drug companies and all that they did-- they racked up a record debt, and they did nothing about it. In fact, when they were in charge, they used to argue on the floor that somehow the deficit and the debt didn't matter anymore. They tried to say it wasn't a big deal. So they left this President with a mess. I guess it's sometimes fun to make a mess, but it's not so fun and not so easy to clean up a mess. The Democrats in Congress and the President of the United States have to clean up the mess that they left. It's a little bit ironic that those who drove this economy into a ditch are complaining about the size of the tow truck. The fact of the matter is we have to make some tough decisions. We have to create the conditions for jobs to grow. We have to invest in industries where there is a future, and we are trying to do that. Again, in the last 3 months of the Bush administration, the economy was losing, on average, 673,000 jobs per month. In the last 3 months of 2009, the average job loss was 69,000 per month, which is an improvement of nearly 90 percent. We on the Democratic side have pledged to do everything we can to help create more jobs in this country and to focus on the issue of jobs, because that's where the concern amongst the American people really is. In the stock market, stocks have seen significant gains since the beginning of March 2009, following the passage of the Recovery Act, which they all were opposed to. The Dow is up 58 percent. The S&P is up 64 percent. The Nasdaq is up 75 percent. The GDP has grown. In the first quarter of 2009, the GDP was negative 6.4 percent. By the third quarter of 2009, the GDP was on the rise, increasing plus-2.2 percent, the best quarter for growth in 2 years. Forecasters predict steady GDP growth throughout 2010. We see home sales are now rising. We see manufacturing beginning to rebound. U.S. manufacturing activity rose 55.9 from 53.6 in November, reaching the highest level since April of 2006. It is a positive indication of broader economic growth. So it is difficult to sit here and to listen to lectures from Members on the other side of the aisle who created this mess, which is the worst economy since the Great Depression. That's what they gave to President Obama. We have to fix it, and we have pledged to do whatever is necessary to help put people back to work, to help people be able to stay in their homes, and to help nurture growth in future industries. So, Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments from my friends on the other side of the aisle. Given their abysmal record, it's hard to believe they come here with straight faces to talk about these things; but we're going to fix the mess that they made. Again, I would urge my colleagues to support the rule, and I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule. The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows: Amendment to H. Res. 1017 Offered by Mr. Diaz-Balart At the end of the resolution, add the following new section: Sec. 4. On the third legislative day after the adoption of this resolution, immediately after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV and without intervention of any point of order, the House shall proceed to the consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 847) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that any conference committee or other meetings held to determine the content of national health care legislation be conducted in public under the watchful eye of the people of the United States. The resolution shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution to final adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules; and (2) one motion to recommit which may not contain instructions. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of House Resolution 847.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1017 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, aside from the fact that the gentleman's comments have absolutely nothing to do with the bill that we're talking about here today, I find it ironic that any Member on the other side of the aisle would talk about jobs with a straight face given their record. In the last 3 months of the Bush administration, the economy was losing, on average, 673,000 jobs per month. In the last 3 months of 2009, the average job loss was 69,000 per month, an improvement of nearly 90 percent. That is not acceptable, but we are trying to bring this economy in a different direction. They drove this economy into a ditch; let's not forget that. Let's not forget the economy that President Obama inherited. Let's not forget the record job losses and the stock market crash and all the special deals on Wall Street. I've heard enough from the other side about the issue of jobs. They nearly ruined this economy. They are responsible for the massive job losses that we see now that we're trying to fix. So enough about that. I will go back to what we are talking about here today, and that is a rule to consider these important bills dealing with clean water for Native American tribes. I again would reiterate that this is a good rule, everything they wanted they got, and I hope it will pass unanimously. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1017.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1017 is a single rule that provides for separate consideration of three measures dealing with water rights settlements. Each bill is to be considered under a structured amendment process. The rule provides for the consideration of H.R. 3254, the Taos Pueblo Indian Water Rights Settlement Act; H.R. 3342, the Aamodt Litigation Settlement Act; and H.R. 1065, the White Mountain Apache Tribe Water Rights Quantification Act of 2009. Each bill has 1 hour of general debate, to be controlled by the Committee on Natural Resources. The rule for H.R. 1065 self-executes an amendment to ensure that the bill is PAYGO compliant. Each bill allows for the consideration of a separate amendment by Representative McClintock, which is debatable for 10 minutes. The rule also allows a motion to recommit, with or without instructions, for each of the three bills. H.R. 1065, the White Mountain Apache Tribe Water Rights Quantification Act of 2009; H.R. 3254, the Taos Pueblo Indian Water Rights Settlement Act; and H.R. 3342, the Aamodt Litigation Settlement Act are all bipartisanship pieces of legislation, and they are all sensible pieces of legislation. Each of these bills will approve, ratify, and confirm carefully negotiated settlement agreements between tribal representatives, non-Indian water users, and the United States Government. These agreements will provide both the tribes involved and affected communities in Arizona and New Mexico proper access to clean water. These three bills will provide critical funding for the development of drinking water supplies for people who have been hauling their water for years in the back of their pickup trucks. We know how critical clean drinking water is for the human body's health and development. These bills will improve the health of young Native Americans by providing clean drinking water, and certainty to non-Indian people that the water will be available to them for development and use. H.R. 1065 provides the required congressional approval for the agreement between the White Mountain Apache tribe and water users throughout Arizona. This legislation boasts the support of the entire bipartisanship Arizona delegation. H.R. 3254 and H.R. 3342 each approve water settlement agreements in New Mexico considered critical to clean water access to the Taos Valley and Rio Grande watershed. Both of these bills were favorably reported by voice vote out of the Natural Resources Committee. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, it has taken decades to work out these settlements. Congress has a responsibility to approve these settlements now and provide clean drinking water access for the affected tribes and the non-Indian people, and for their generations to come. I believe it is time for Congress to move on these bills, and I am pleased that Chairman Rahall and the Natural Resources Committee has worked in a bipartisan way to move these bills through the process. Now, there is some concern on the other side of the aisle that the Justice Department has not commented formally on any of these bills. Our colleague from California (Mr. McClintock) believes the Department of Justice should formally respond to each of these bills before they take effect. The gentleman from California has legitimate concerns, and these concerns deserve to be considered on the floor today, and that is why we made this amendment in order on each of these bills. This is a good rule. I urge my colleagues to support it today. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate how well my colleague on the Rules Committee adheres to the Republican talking points, but I will again reiterate that all the amendments that were brought to the Rules Committee last night were made in order. And I think this is a good rule. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank my colleague for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this rule, and specifically, I rise in support of the Jobs for Main Street Act, which we made in order under this rule. This important bill will provide the following: $48 billion for highways, transit, and other infrastructure projects; $27 billion to hire teachers, police, firefighters, and for other job training programs. That's $75 billion for job-creating programs that are proven successes and that will help put Americans back to work. On top of that, the Jobs for Main Street Act provides $79 billion in emergency relief funding that will go to critical safety net programs like unemployment benefits, health insurance for unemployed workers, Federal matching funds for Medicaid, and funding for the child tax credit. All told, Madam Speaker, the Jobs for Main Street Act is a good bill, one that will build on the success of the Recovery Act, which was signed into law earlier this year and which is one that will put people back to work. We know that these are difficult economic times, and we recognize that the American public is hurting. With the Jobs for Main Street Act, we will continue to stimulate the economy, to shrink the unemployment rate, and, more importantly, to create new jobs. Ten months after President Obama signed the Recovery Act into law, we are seeing real results across the country. According to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, real jobs are being created by the Recovery Act, and we are seeing the impact of these jobs in the unemployment figures. Look at the results: Because of the Recovery Act, we have seen the creation of almost 630,000 direct and indirect jobs in the transportation industry alone. That's 210,000 direct hires alone. The result of these direct hires is a $1.1 billion payroll. It is $179 million in unemployment compensation not spent. It is people's insurance restored, health insurance restored, and it is $230 million in paid Federal taxes. Additional jobs have been created because of the clean water and high-speed rail projects. All told, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee estimates that the Recovery Act has created or has sustained approximately 857,000 jobs. All of this underscores the importance of public infrastructure programs. These aren't projects just for the safety and well-being of our friends and neighbors; they are also projects that put these friends and neighbors back to work. Madam Speaker, this Congress is acting. This House will pass the Jobs for Main Street Act and even more jobs will be created. Earlier this year, my Republican friends chose politics over the needs of the American people, and every single one of them opposed the Recovery and Reinvestment Act. They liked the same old, same old. Well, that was their way of thinking. That's the old way of thinking. That way of thinking took Bill Clinton's accomplishments in creating a record number of jobs and eliminating our deficits and paying down the debt and turned it into George Bush's recession, a recession that cost millions of Americans jobs, a recession that added billions and billions to our debt and added that debt on the backs of our children and our grandchildren. Madam Speaker, people in this country want us to act. People want us to create jobs, and that's what we are going to do.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I rise today with a number of my colleagues to express our continuing concern about the President's decision to escalate our military effort in Afghanistan by an additional 30,000 troops. Thirty thousand additional Americans put into harm's way in Afghanistan is a big deal, Madam Speaker, and I am concerned that the House of Representatives will be adjourning for the year without a real, meaningful, substantive debate about this important issue. I happen to believe that increasing our military presence by 30,000 troops will make it 30,000 times harder to extricate ourselves from this mess. But whatever my colleagues believe about this decision-- support, oppose, or noncommittal--we owe it to ourselves and to the people that we represent to have a thorough debate about our policy. I would urge this administration to submit their supplemental request for this escalation sooner rather than later. Congress has a constitutional role to play. We have the power of the purse and the responsibility to declare war. We haven't played that role in any meaningful way since 2001. That was the last time that this Chamber had a debate on Afghanistan, 2001. In those eight long years hundreds of American soldiers have lost their lives, thousands have been wounded, and we have spent hundreds of billions of dollars, and we still do not have a clear exit strategy. Everyone seems to agree that Afghanistan requires a political solution. The question I still have is this: When does our military commitment to that political solution come to an end so that we could bring our troops home? In no way do I believe that we should abandon Afghanistan or its people. They have been through far too much trauma over the last several decades. Nor do I believe that we should abandon our fight against the people who murdered thousands of Americans on September 11, 2001. Indeed, I am concerned that by committing over 100,000 American troops to nation building in Afghanistan, we will be less able to target those who attacked us, and that is al Qaeda, because al Qaeda no longer has a large presence in Afghanistan. Our top generals say that maybe there are 100 or less al Qaeda still in Afghanistan. They have moved to Pakistan. I do not believe that the best, most effective way to fight al Qaeda is to increase our military footprint in Afghanistan. In Afghanistan we need a new strategy. I would urge my colleagues to read a recent op ed in The New York Times by Nicholas Kristof. He points out that for the cost of one U.S. soldier deployed in Afghanistan, we could build 20 schools in Afghanistan. Let me repeat that. For the cost of one American soldier in Afghanistan for a year we could build 20 schools in Afghanistan. Not only that, it seems that before the administration announced this new escalation, they failed to thoroughly consult with the elders and the local leaders and others in Afghanistan about the best way forward. Madam Speaker, without local support, without the support of the local leaders who have the respect of the Afghan people, nothing we do will work or be sustainable. I also continue to be deeply troubled about the Karzai government. Today President Karzai is scheduled to convene a three-day conference on corruption. At a minimum, this conference is supposed to provide a forum where the Afghan government admits publicly that it runs on bribery, graft and cronyism which, in turn, fuels the Taliban insurgency. President Karzai called this conference--not because he campaigned on cleaning up this government--but because of international pressure. He ran a fraudulent election that undermined international support for the war on Afghanistan, and this is an attempt to show the international community, and especially the United States, that he will somehow clean up his own house. We will have to wait and see if it's more than just more talk, talk, talk. We will have to see if he is willing to kick out of office the very warlords, drug lords, family members, and cronies he appointed to high government positions, and if he does, whether he appoints reform- minded Afghans in their place. Again, Madam Speaker, we are about to embark on another huge escalation in a very troubled part of the world. Congress needs to debate this critical issue. Our men and women in uniform, and every other American we represent, deserve no less. [From the New York Times, Dec. 3, 2009] OP-ED Columnist; Johnson, Gorbachev, Obama (By Nicholas D. Kristof) Imagine you're a villager living in southern Afghanistan. You're barely educated, proud of your region's history of stopping invaders and suspicious of outsiders. Like most of your fellow Pashtuns, you generally dislike the Taliban because many are overzealous, truculent nutcases. Yet you are even more suspicious of the infidel American troops. You know of some villages where the Americans have helped build roads and been respectful of local elders and customs. On the other hand, you know of other villages where the infidel troops have invaded homes, shamed families by ogling women, or bombed wedding parties. You're angry that your people, the Pashtuns, traditionally the dominant tribe of Afghanistan, seem to have been pushed aside in recent years, with American help. Moreover, the Afghan government has never been more corrupt. The Taliban may be incompetent, but at least they are pious Muslim Pashtuns and reasonably honest. You were always uncomfortable with foreign troops in your land, but it wasn't so bad the first few years when there were only about 10,000 American soldiers in the entire country. Now, after President Obama's speech on Tuesday, there soon will be 100,000. That's three times as many as when the president took office, and 10 times as many as in 2003. Hmmm. You still distrust the Taliban, but maybe they're right to warn about infidels occupying your land. Perhaps you'll give a goat to support your clansman who joined the local Taliban. That's why so many people working in Afghanistan at the grass roots are watching the Obama escalation with a sinking feeling. President Lyndon Johnson doubled down on the Vietnam bet soon after he inherited the presidency, and Mikhail Gorbachev escalated the Soviet deployment that he inherited in Afghanistan soon after he took over the leadership of his country. They both inherited a mess--and made it worse and costlier. As with the Americans in Vietnam, and Soviets in Afghanistan, we understate the risk of a nationalist backlash; somehow Mr. Obama has emerged as more enthusiastic about additional troops than even the corrupt Afghan government we are buttressing. Gen. Stanley McChrystal warned in his report on the situation in Afghanistan that ``new resources are not the crux'' of the problem. Rather, he said, the key is a new approach that emphasizes winning hearts and minds: ``Our strategy cannot be focused on seizing terrain or destroying insurgent troops; our objective must be the population.'' So why wasn't the Afghan population more directly consulted? ``To me, what was most concerning is that there was never any consultation with the Afghan shura, the tribal elders,'' said Greg Mortenson, whose extraordinary work building schools in Pakistan and Afghanistan was chronicled in ``Three Cups of Tea'' and his new book, ``From Stones to Schools.'' ``It was all decided on the basis of congressmen and generals speaking up, with nobody consulting Afghan elders. One of the elders' messages is we don't need firepower, we need brainpower. They want schools, health facilities, but not necessarily more physical troops.'' For the cost of deploying one soldier for one year, it is possible to build about 20 schools. Another program that is enjoying great success in undermining the Taliban is the National Solidarity Program, or N.S.P., which helps villages build projects that they choose--typically schools, clinics, irrigation projects, bridges. This is widely regarded as one of the most successful and least corrupt initiatives in Afghanistan. ``It's a terrific program,'' said George Rupp, the president of the International Rescue Committee. ``But it's underfunded. And it takes very little: for the cost of one U.S. soldier for a year, you could have the N.S.P. in 20 more villages.''

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. General Leave

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 961 provides for the consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 3288, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010. The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and against consideration. It provides that the conference report shall be considered as read and, finally, it provides that the previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervention of any motion except 1 hour of debate and one motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, we're here finishing up the fiscal year 2010 appropriations bills. This consolidated appropriations bill is the product of many, many months of hard work. It contains six of the seven outstanding appropriations bills. Mr. Speaker, in all candor, I must admit that I have a slightly different perspective on the appropriations process than I did 3 years ago. Then, in the minority, I questioned why the then-Republican majority wasn't able to finish their bills on time. I realize now that in many cases, finishing the bills in a timely fashion wasn't always the fault of the majority in the House but rather a result of the dysfunction in the Senate. Now, 3 years later, the situation is similar. We, this House, this Democratic majority, did our job. We passed every single bill in a timely way and we did so responsibly, and in many cases joined by many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. For example, the Homeland Security bill passed with 389 votes, including the support of my good friend from California. Now, despite our hard work to move this process forward, I am sure that the gentleman from San Dimas is going to protest about the process here, that this bill is made up of six bills, and I'm sure he will come up with some clever, colorful phrases to describe his feelings today, and we all look forward to that. But we are essentially reaffirming votes that have already been taken on issues that have already been previously debated and discussed. The chairmen and ranking members of the appropriations subcommittees deserve credit for their bills. There is critical funding included for roads and bridges; for rail projects; for greenhouse gas emissions; for public housing and other housing vouchers; for critical international aid programs like the response to global HIV/AIDS, poverty, food security, education, and international disaster assistance; for programs that prevent and prosecute violence against women and other justice programs; critical health programs including NIH funding, public health programs, programs addressing health professions workforce shortages, LIHEAP, Head Start, and other education programs. These bills are about priorities. They are about values. They show who we are as a Congress, and I stand by the values articulated in these bills. While some will complain that we are spending too much money, that these bills are too big, I look at it in a very different way. Mr. Speaker, I see these bills as an opportunity to reverse years of neglect: neglect to our roads and our bridges, neglect to our lower income neighbors and friends, neglect to our education system, and neglect to our veterans. You see, Mr. Speaker, this Democratic majority inherited a troubled country. Our Republican friends squandered budget surpluses. Their reverse Midas touch turned surpluses into deficits. They spent money like they were drunken sailors and yet never felt the responsibility to pay for their spending. They turned a blind eye to transgressions of Wall Street, allowing Main Street to feel the pain of Wall Street running wild. What did we start out with? We started out with, we inherited, a financial system on the brink of collapse, the worst recession since the Great Depression, two wars that weren't paid for, a broken health care system, and a 1950s energy policy. That was the gift from the Bush administration and a Republican majority in Congress. So there's been a lot to fix this year. Just look at some of the numbers, Mr. Speaker. Job growth under the current administration is reversing a long downward spiral that started under the last President. The stimulus plan is working as planned. We are making sound investments in helping Americans find good jobs and getting this economy moving again. The unemployment rate dropped last month and the efforts of this Congress are helping people afford a home, helping to breathe life back into our real estate economy. Even the TARP program is working better than expected. Confidence has been restored to Wall Street, and more than $200 billion will be returned to the government. So here we are, Mr. Speaker, digging out from the Bush economy, the Bush recession. It's time to get this done, but it's not going to happen overnight. It's time to fund our priorities and meet the needs of the American people. Simply, Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill we will consider today, and it deserves to be supported by every single Member of this body. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that this Congress has a very tough job. We are digging ourselves out of the mess that Mr. Bush and his Republican allies created. Years and years of neglect. Years of ignoring the most important pressing problems facing our country. When President Obama got elected, he inherited a crumbling infrastructure in this country because of the years of neglect by the Republicans and by the Republican President. He inherited a country that had no solid plans for alternative or renewable or clean energy because of the neglect and the obstructionism on the other side. He inherited a country where the health and well-being of our citizens had been neglected for years and years and years. So what we are doing here and what these appropriations bills are responding to are the years of neglect.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for my colleague from Arizona, but technically, this point of order is about whether or not to consider this rule and ultimately the underlying conference report. In reality, it is about trying to block this report without any opportunity for debate and without any opportunity for an up-or-down vote on the legislation itself. I think that is wrong, and I hope my colleagues will vote ``yes'' so we can consider this important legislation on its merits and not stop it on a procedural motion. Those who oppose the conference report can vote against it on final passage. We must consider this rule, we must have a debate, and we must pass this legislation today. I have the right to close, but in the end, I will urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' to consider the rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 961 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McGOVERN. For 2 of those years, we had a Republican President who obstructed every single progressive, positive idea that came out of this Chamber. So this is the response to the neglect of the years of Republican rule, and we have to clean up this mess. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the chairman of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights exactly 61 years ago. This document was born on the ashes of a global war which saw the murder of over six million Jewish people during the Holocaust and the deaths of over 60 million people around the world. Just when it seemed that humanity was irrevocably lost in the global devastation of this conflict, some of the greatest leaders of their time, such as Eleanor Roosevelt, came together at the United Nations to enshrine a common human bond of individual dreams and aspirations protected by defined rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. While formally a resolution, not a treaty, its provisions are part of every legally binding international instrument which sets out to protect human rights. Today, 61 years after its adoption, the catalog of defined rights has withstood the test of time, but the full implementation of those rights is as elusive as ever. The language and the context in which we discuss these rights today may have changed, but the urgency and importance to protect them globally has not. Terms such as internet freedom, global war on terror, environmental devastation, water-boarding, Guantanamo, corporate social responsibility, food security, women's rights and the Responsibility to Protect are just a few of those modern terms which put in sharp focus the relevance of those rights set forth in this document 61 years ago. During that period, the United States was a leader among nations in defining and defending those rights and spearheaded international consensus and agreements. More recently, however, we seem to have either forgotten the hard-won lessons of that period or at least have misapplied them. Instead of holding on tighter to our believes and commitments after the 9/11 attacks, we were willing to consider these sacred values impediments to our national sovereignty and infringements on our right to defend our country. Instead of heeding the admonition of one of the greatest American Presidents--another Roosevelt--who led this nation through the Great Depression and defeated the most evil regime in human history, that ``the only thing we have to fear is fear itself,'' we abandoned our human rights commitments at home. Faced with an unknown and secretive enemy, fear drove us to suspend important legal protections, to re-define the meaning of torture, to engage in extraordinary renditions of individuals utilizing poor human rights records of other countries, and we created with Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo monuments to that failed policy that still serve as recruiting tools for extremists all over the world. All the while we harshly criticized friends and foes alike if they disagreed with us, and set on an international course of democracy promotion, which was of the ``either you are with us, or you are against us'' nature. To regain our international standing and reputation, and in recognition of the fact that we can only defeat terrorism with the support of the relevant local populations, we have recently undertaken significant diplomatic efforts to repair our international relationships. We have announced the closure of Guantanamo, and have ruled out enhanced interrogation techniques, have passed hate crimes legislation at home and have joined the Human Rights Council. While important parts of these objectives have yet to be achieved, the American public and the international community have rightfully applauded these important and difficult initiatives. But while we have made domestic human rights gains, we now stand to lose our human rights bearings abroad. With ambiguous statements and actions the United States has sent signals to repressive regimes that human rights may no longer feature prominently in our foreign relations and that there is the possibility of a ``fresh start,'' which can be triggered by a magical ``reset button.'' While I strongly support the direct engagement of repressive regimes around the globe, I am equally convinced that past human rights records cannot be ``reset,'' or glossed over. The Universal Declaration does not provide for a ``reset button'' for gross human rights violations, nor do any of the international human rights treaties. Repressive regimes will only seriously engage the United States and the international community on important human rights issues if we take a principled stand, both in public and in private, which is based on accountability. We owe justice to human rights victims, be that in Sudan, Burma, China, North Korea, Russia or anywhere else in the world.