Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I reserve my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, let me reiterate that we find ourselves in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. We find ourselves in this position in large part because of the very reckless policies of the last 8 years, policies that have been championed by President Bush and by the Republicans when they were in the majority. And I want to commend the Republicans for actually introducing a budget alternative to the Rules Committee because, up until just today, what they handed out was a brochure with not a lot of numbers in it, a lot of criticism of Democrats. But I look forward to----

Mr. McGOVERN. No, I'm it.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I would just say to the gentleman who just spoke that we've tried it his way and his way failed. Our economy is in the worst shape it has been in my lifetime, probably in the worst shape since the Great Depression. The policies that they have pursued for the last 8 years have failed. The American people, in the election in November, made it very clear they want to move in a different direction. The budget that we are presenting here today, that the Democrats are proudly presenting here today, not only turns the page, but writes a whole new book on the way this country should move forward. We're going to tackle the big problems of global warming and of health care. We're going to deal with health care once and for all, and not only in a way that provides people with the quality care that they deserve and they are entitled to, but also helps control costs. We have ignored these big problems for far too long. So I stand before you again, Madam Speaker, proud to say that the Democratic budget, the budget that has been inspired by President Obama, is the right budget for this country. And there is a clear choice. I mean, I think we could agree on one thing, that there is a very clear choice. We can either go the way the Republicans want us to go or the way the Democrats want us to go. And I think we have tried the Republican way, and it has failed. I reserve my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, the gentlelady talks about compassion. I don't see a lot of compassion in the Republican budget. In fact, I haven't seen a lot of compassion in the Republican policies over the last 8 years. We are living in a country where there are 36 million Americans who are hungry, millions of whom are children. Where is the compassion? Where is the response? We have kids going to schools that are falling apart, where the heat works in the summer but doesn't work in the winter. Where is the compassion to make sure that our kids get the education that they deserve? We have a world where the environment is becoming the key issue, the issue of global climate change. We are giving our kids that kind of world? Where is the compassion there? If you want compassion, it is in the Democratic budget, which is not only compassionate but is fiscally responsible and will give our kids the kind of future they deserve. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. I will hold on just in case.

Mr. McGOVERN. Not at this time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate that, and I would point to the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts that went mostly to the wealthy that bankrupted this Nation. The fact of the matter is the gentleman's party controlled Congress for many years. His party controlled the White House for many years. And jointly, they have driven this economy into a ditch. I think there are philosophical differences here. And I think one of the major differences is that we believe that in order to be able to pay down the debt, we need to grow this economy. And to grow this economy in these difficult times means investing in our people and everything from education to health care to environmental technologies. The Republican budget is really the same old same old, more tax cuts for the wealthy, and basically, an indifference towards some of the Nation's most pressing problems. You cannot rebuild roads and bridges for nothing. We can't just simply constantly put the burden of education, the cost of education, and special education in particular, on the backs of our cities and towns. There needs to be an understanding that in order to get this economy back up and running, we are going to need to invest. And that is what the Democratic budget does. I stand before you proud to defend this budget, proud of the fact that we have a budget that has a conscience, proud of the fact that when this gets enacted, we are going to have a blueprint for this country that I believe will not only put us back on the road to economic recovery but will allow us to pay down our deficits and our debt. As I said in my opening statement, the House budget slashes the deficit by nearly two-thirds over the next 4 years, from $1.7 trillion or 12.3 percent of gross domestic product in 2009 to $586 billion, or 3.5 percent of gross domestic product in 2013. I would reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I want to point out for my colleagues one important fact that I think we need to keep in mind. When President Bush became President of the United States, he inherited a record surplus of $5.6 trillion over 10 years. He left us with a record deficit of $5.8 trillion, with double the national debt and triple the amount held by foreign countries. We were left with flat wages and the smallest rate of job growth in three-quarters of a century. We tried it the gentleman's way. And it failed. People do not want the status quo. They do not want the same old same old. There is a general understanding amongst the American people that in order for us to be able to reduce our deficit and pay down our debt, we need to grow this economy. And you cannot grow this economy unless you invest in the American people and unless you invest in the economy. I am happy to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 305 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, for the purposes 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. Madam Speaker, the Democratic budget moves us in a different direction, in one that, I think, the American people want us to move. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and on the rule. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. McGOVERN. We are faced with the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, and what they propose is the same old same old. Enough. Enough.

Mr. McGOVERN. Our budget actually goes after subsidies for wealthy farmers, but it does not go after food stamps for the vulnerable. The Republican budget that has been proposed makes dramatic cuts in some of the most essential and valuable programs that serve the most vulnerable people in our country.

Mr. McGOVERN. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. McGOVERN. Because up until today we had a political brochure. But anyway, a cursory look at what they presented, there are some substantial cuts in some very essential programs. They're talking about a $38.5 billion cut in agriculture. Well, what are they going to cut? Are they going to cut food stamps and nutrition programs to people who are suffering and struggling during these terrible economic times? A $22.7 billion cut to education and labor. Are they going to cut schools more? Are we going to cut money for special education? I mean, there are some significant programs that will have to be cut as a result of what they're proposing. Energy and Commerce, a $666.1 billion cut. What are they going to cut, Medicare and Medicaid? Billions of dollars in Financial Services. Where are the cuts going to come from? Housing for low-income people? Is that the idea of what a compassionate budget is about? Ways and Means, billions and billions of dollars of cuts for the Ways and Means Committee, again, going into Medicare, you know, programs that help vulnerable senior citizens. Madam Speaker, I think people are tired of the same old same old. And let me tell you what the old way was. The old way was to ignore health care. That's why we have such a mess with health care today. The old way was to ignore education. That's why we have so many schools that are crumbling. That's why we're understaffed in terms of our teachers. That's why schools don't have the technology that they all should have. The old way is to give tax breaks to millionaires. The old way was to continue to rely on foreign oil. The budget that the Democrats are proudly presenting today puts us in a very new direction, in a direction that I think the American people are excited about. That is what this last election was about. People will have their opportunity to vote for the Republican budget or the Democratic budget, whatever they want to do. But please know one thing. What they are proposing is what they have been proposing consistently for as long as I have been here.

Mr. McGOVERN. I am saying that I am glad that the gentleman, the Republicans have submitted a budget to the Rules Committee today----

Mr. McGOVERN. I am happy to yield to the gentleman for a question.

Mr. McGOVERN. Reclaiming my time, what they did last week was produce a document that was basically a political piece that had no numbers in it and was basically an attack on the President and on the Democratic budget. Now, we have been able to take a cursory look at some of the things that are in the Republican budget alternative, and if you would note-- --

Mr. McGOVERN. I am happy to yield.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, a week ago today, I had the privilege of attending the E-911 Institute's 6th Annual Honors Gala Dinner Program to present my constituent, Michael J. Mangini, with the organization's prestigious industry professional award. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to personally recognize the extraordinary contributions Michael has made to public safety during the course of his remarkable career. I respectfully request that my remarks from that evening be printed in the Congressional Record as a lasting and enduring tribute to this very special man. Thank you. Good evening. I'm pleased to be here tonight with my colleagues for this occasion. I am proud to be a member of the E-911 Caucus and am very grateful for the important work that the E-911 Institute does on behalf emergency preparedness all across the country. I am especially honored to have been invited to present your association's prestigious industry professional award this year to one of the true unsung heroes of your profession and a constituent of mine from Hopkinton, Massachusetts, Michael Mangini. To those of you not from Massachusetts, Hopkinton is best known as the starting place for the Boston Marathon. I can't drive 26 miles never mind run it but I wanted to share that fun fact with all of you nonetheless. Michael is joined here tonight by his wife, Susan; their daughter Christina; and his very proud parents, Mr. & Mrs. Mangini. I also want to point out Michael's friend and colleague at Plant CML, Paul Fahey, who nominated Mike for this award. Paul's parents are also constituents of mine from Worcester, Massachusetts so this is like an episode of ``All in the Family'' for me tonight. In all seriousness, Michael Mangini is truly deserving of the honor you bestow on him tonight. He has devoted his entire professional career to improving emergency communications in both the public and private sectors. First, as Director of Technical Services for the City of Boston's Emergency Services Department, Michael earned the respect and admiration of the entire public safety community. His conscientious commitment to his job, his extraordinary expertise in the field and his unfailing professionalism garnered the attention of no less than the Governor of Massachusetts who asked him to serve as a founding member of the first state-wide emergency telecommunications board in 1991. As Chair of the Board's Standards Committee, Michael was principally responsible for the development and implementation of one of the largest and most successful E- 911 programs in the nation. He served on the state's emergency telecommunications board for fully eleven years, and his contributions in that role have undeniably made the Commonwealth of Massachusetts a safer place to live for all of its citizens. In addition to his service to the state, Michael has been an active member of the Association of Public Communications Officials (APCO) International since 1986 and is a past recipient of its highest honor, the Presidential Award. Michael has also been a member of the National Emergency Number Association (NENA) since 1987 and served as President of the Massachusetts Chapter. Today, Michael serves as Director of Solutions Engineering at Plant CML where he is responsible for leading the company's largest and most complex projects. Other than the love of family, I don't think there is any greater honor in life than to receive the recognition of your peers in your chosen profession. Michael Mangini is not only a worthy recipient of this industry professional award, he is also owed a debt a gratitude for his service to his community, his Commonwealth and his country. I am very proud to be able to present him with this award.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, we are not tearing up the Constitution here, we are responding to bad behavior. We are telling corporate America that we are not going to bail them out, our financial institutions. We are not going to bail them out and let them do what AIG just did. The American people are outraged, and rightly so, at the news that insurance giant AIG has given large bonuses to some of its employees. It is outrageous that a company that is being bailed out by the American people is providing bonuses to the people who dealt in these exotic financial instruments. Those employees made bad bets, and now the American people are paying the tab. Mr. Speaker, not many of my constituents are getting so-called retention bonuses these days, and I can tell you that. They are not sure if they are going to wake up tomorrow with a job. In Fall River, the unemployment rate is 16 percent. The city is being forced to lay off police officers and firefighters. Food banks are at their capacity, and they are being asked to pony up so-called retention bonuses for the people who got us into this mess? It is absolutely nuts. Now I know that the CEO of AIG said yesterday that he has asked the people who have received these bonuses to give them back, and that's great. But I am afraid we can't simply rely on their good-hearted generosity. I understand, and I support the need to ensure the stability of the American banking system. We need to get the credit flowing again. We need to make sure that people have access to mortgages and car loans and student loans. We need to make sure that small businesses have access to credit. But we also need to make sure that bad behavior isn't rewarded with taxpayer money, and that's what this bill is all about. And as President Obama has rightly said, we must also put in place the appropriate rules and regulations going forward so that this kind of financial collapse never happens again. Mr. Speaker, we need to get this right. We inherited a lousy economy from the previous administration, and we are in a position now where we need to help us support our financial institutions, but we need to make sure that we do so in a way that doesn't allow this kind of bad behavior to continue. I applaud Speaker Pelosi and the leadership for bringing this bill to the floor. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, Secretary Clinton called the President of Sri Lanka to express deep concern over the deteriorating human rights situation in northern Sri Lanka. She stated clearly that the army should not fire on civilians, that international organizations should have full access to the thousands of people trapped inside the conflict area, and she condemned the Tamil Tigers for their atrocities. It was a strong human rights statement. Last Wednesday, Secretary Clinton stood up for the rights of women when she hosted the 2009 International Women of Courage Awards. She noted those women whose governments kept them from traveling to Washington to receive this honor. She also met with the Chinese Foreign Minister. She told him that every nation seeking to lead in the international community must live by the global rules that determine whether people enjoy the right to live freely and participate fully, including the freedom to speak out, to worship, and to live and work with dignity. Secretary Clinton is committed to a strong human rights agenda, and I look forward to working with her and promoting human rights in U.S. foreign policy. U.S. Department of State, Office of the Spokesman, March 13, 2009.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this important resolution, and I want to thank my friend, Congressman Rush Holt, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and the chairman and ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee for their leadership in the long struggle for freedom, dignity, and human rights in Tibet. Mr. Speaker, for six decades the history of Tibet has been marked by violence. Even before 1949, the People's Liberation Army of China entered the eastern areas of Tibet during the Long March. In 1959, they finally occupied the capital of Lhasa. Fifty years ago, on March 10, the Tibetan people rose up in Lhasa against Chinese rule. The backlash was furious and brutal. On March 17, the Dalai Lama fled Lhasa for his own safety, joined by some 80,000 Tibetans, for life in exile. Tens of thousands who remained were kill or imprisoned. Thanks to the thriving exile communities in India, Europe, and the United States, Tibetan cultural identity, language, and religion have survived. They have focused world attention on the Tibetan struggle. But each and every year, the situation inside Tibet grows worse, with more repression, more arrests, more displacement, more deliberate destruction of the Tibetan language, culture, and religion. One year ago, new protests rose up in Tibet. They were the result of greater controls over religious and cultural activity, development that mainly benefited Chinese migrants, and forced resettlement of farmers and nomads. Thousands and thousands were arrested. To date, there has been no full accounting by Chinese authorities of those arrested, detained, tried, sentenced, or released, and no access to those detained by the International Committee of the Red Cross or other international observers, and all the time the Tibetan people daily become more of a minority in their own land. Mr. Speaker, as the new cochair of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, it is humbling to follow in the footsteps of Thomas Lantos. The Congressional Human Rights Caucus, which he founded, was the very first to give the Dalai Lama a voice on Capitol Hill in 1987. On this 50th anniversary, let's be very, very clear that the American people in this House stand with His Holiness. We will not rest until meaningful and full autonomy for the Tibetan people is achieved--and the Dalai Lama and his people can fulfill their dream of returning home to Tibet. I thank the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee for generously giving me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this important resolution, which recognizes the plight of the Tibetan people on the 50th Anniversary of His Holiness the Dalai Lama's exile and calls for a sustained multilateral effort toward a peaceful solution to the Tibet issue. I thank my friend Rush Holt, and the distinguished Ranking Member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, as well the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, for their leadership on human rights and for bringing this resolution expeditiously to the floor. Mr. Speaker, last Friday my friend and distinguished colleague, Frank Wolf and I were formally reappointed Co-Chairs of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, the successor body of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, which I had the honor to co-chair with Frank Wolf after our former colleague Tom Lantos passed away. I mention this because of the historic significance of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus in getting the voice of the Tibetan people heard in the United States. In 1987, it was Congressman Tom Lantos who had invited His Holiness the Dalai Lama to attend a meeting of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus as the first official government entity in the United States, despite stiff opposition from many quarters including the U.S. Administration to do so. Many were fearful what such an invitation would do to our bilateral relations with the People's Republic of China, and the PRC used every conceivable tool to prevent this historic meeting from happening. Those voices of those critics in the United States soon fell quiet after the meeting took place, as the moral authority of his Holiness and his perstintly peaceful way to fight for meaningful autonomy of the Tibetan people attracted more and more support and with the American people and in Congress. Twenty years later, it was this body that awarded His Holiness the Congressional Gold Medal in recognition of his life-long dedication to the causes of peace and non-violent resolution to the Tibet issue. Mr. Speaker, the history of Tibet has long been marked by violence. Even before 1949, the People's Liberation Army of China entered the eastern areas of the traditional Tibetan territory on The Long March. In 1951, they finally occupied the Tibetan capital of Lhasa. On this day fifty years ago, the Tibetan people rose up in Lhasa against Chinese rule, and the backlash was furious and brutal. As a consequence, His Holiness the Dalai Lama fled Lhasa on March 17, 1959, for his own safety. He was joined by some 80,000 Tibetans in exile. Tens of thousands of Tibetans who remained were either killed or imprisoned. The human rights situation became so dire that in 1959, 1961 and 1965 (before China became a member of the United Nations), the UN General Assembly passed resolutions condemning the human rights violations in Tibet and affirming Tibetans' right to self-determination. Supported by thriving exile communities in India, the United States, Europe, Tibetan cultural identity, language and religion has survived and the world is paying attention to the Tibetan struggle. In 2002 Congress passed the Tibetan Policy Act, the cornerstone of U.S. policy toward Tibet. The legislation codified the position of Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues in our State Department, to ensure that U.S. policy promotes a dialogue between the Chinese government and the representatives of the Dalai Lama, and this Act and its policies must remain the cornerstone of our policy regarding Tibet also under this Administration. The policy of the United States Government has to be to continue promoting substantive dialogue between the Government of the People's Republic of China and the Dalai Lama or his representatives to resolve peacefully the dispute and to allow for the return of the Dalai Lama. However, the United States cannot stand as a mere neutral facilitator in this dialogue, when the Chinese government time and time again uses these proceedings to hold out hope, only to drag out negotiations with His Holiness without ever making any progress or without ever achieving any concrete results. All this, while the Tibetan people become a minority in their own territory because of government-controlled migration, and the Tibetan culture is further eroded. We cannot stand by neutrally, when the Chinese government kidnaps a six-year-old child, Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, whom His Holiness has recognized as Panchen Lama, and allow the Chinese government to replace him with a more convenient Panchem Lama of their own choice. On this 50th anniversary, let's be very clear that the American people and this Congress will always stand unwaveringly with His Holiness in this peaceful endeavors, and will not rest until meaningful and full autonomy for the Tibetan people is achieved, and His Holiness can fulfill his dream of returning to Tibet. Mr. Speaker, Tom Lantos' voice has fallen silent, but we cannot let our voices to fall silent too. We always need to speak out for the Tibetan people. [From the Boston Globe, Mar. 10, 2009] Sad Anniversaries in Tibet The authorities in Beijing are nervous today, fearful that remembrance of things past will incite new disorder. They have good reason: On this date two tragic anniversaries are commemorated. First, of the massacres Chinese troops perpetrated 50 years ago, killing 86,000 Tibetans, to crush a Tibetan revolt against harsh Chinese rule. And March 10 is also the one-year anniversary of China's violent crackdown on Tibetans protesting for cultural and religious freedom. China's attempts to expunge Tibet's separate identity cast doubt on Beijing's claim to be a rising power with benign intentions. There is a whiff of colonialism in China's treatment of Tibet and Tibetans. Chinese policymakers are not content to deny Tibet's distinct identity. They demean the ethical and spiritual values of Tibetan Buddhism, and they refuse to grant Tibetans even the limited autonomy proposed by their leader-in-exile, the Dalai Lama. The core objective of Beijing's Tibet policy is to submerge the Tibetan population under waves of Han Chinese migrants who receive special incentives to settle in Tibetan areas. Given China's efforts toward a demographic smothering of Tibetans in their homeland, it is no wonder that Chinese officials feel compelled to lie, brazenly, about the temperate program for reconciliation proposed by the Dalai Lama. In talks last fall with Chinese representatives, the Dalai Lama's envoys presented 11 proposals for limited Tibetan autonomy. The Chinese refused to discuss a single one of the 11 ideas, pretending that all 11 were thinly disguised demands for independence. Beijing takes this rigid position--repeating the transparent falsehood that the Dalai Lama really wants political independence for Tibet--because Chinese policy is to make no concessions to the Tibetan government-in-exile and instead to wait for the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhists to die. The flawed premise of this policy is that Tibetan resistance to Chinese dominance will evaporate after the Dalai Lama is gone. But as the clashes last March in Tibetan regions demonstrated, younger Tibetans are likely to be less patient, and less devoted to nonviolence, than the Dalai Lama and his government-in-exile in Dharamsala, India. China's rulers are fortunate to have the chance to come to terms with the Dalai Lama on Tibetan autonomy within China. Few other governments confronting oppressed ethnic or religious groups have been so lucky. President Obama should appoint a special envoy for Tibet, someone who can help China's leaders see that it is in their own interest to give Tibetans the cultural and religious autonomy the Dalai Lama has proposed.