Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I am the last speaker on my side, so I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1507.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1507 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1507 provides for the consideration of H.R. 7110, the Job Creation and Unemployment Relief Act of 2008. The rule provides 1 hour of debate on the motion equally divided and controlled by the Committee on Appropriations. Mr. Speaker, the past 8 years have not been kind to American workers and their families. Since President Bush was inaugurated 8 years ago, people's wages have stagnated while the cost of food and energy have skyrocketed. Over the past 8 years, more people have been forced into poverty. Over the past 8 years, student loans have become even harder to get, denying access to a college education. Over the past 8 years, more people have trouble putting food on their table. Over the past 8 years, more people have lost their jobs. Over the past 8 years, our infrastructure, our roads and our bridges and levees have deteriorated, and in some cases have collapsed. I hope that the American public sees a pattern here. And these problems didn't just magically happen. We're in this mess today because of the way the Republican party has turned their backs on anyone not fortunate to make millions of dollars, because of President Bush's insistence on tax cuts for the wealthy, and because of the reckless spending originating from the then Republican-controlled Congress. My friends, we are in this mess today because of reckless fiscal and financial mismanagement proposed by this President and rubber-stamped by the Republicans in Congress. And now that the past 8 years has led us to the biggest and most desperate financial crisis since the Great Depression, the Republicans in the House are proposing more tax breaks for their rich friends on Wall Street. Their answer to a frozen market is more tax cuts for the people who got us into this mess in the first place. When the times get tough, the Republicans try to cut taxes for the rich. That's not leadership, Mr. Speaker; that's just more of the same bad policies that got us here. There is a different way, a way that looks out for Main Street. We recognize, those of us in the Democratic Caucus, we recognize that everyday Americans, not the Donald Trumps of the world or the big oil companies, need help in these very tough times. We know that rising food prices are causing people to cut back on the food that they're putting on their tables. We know that jobs are increasingly hard to find, and that unemployed Americans are exhausting the unemployment benefits that are helping them scrape by as they look for new jobs. We know that the crumbling infrastructure in our Nation must be fixed, that we cannot risk another bridge collapse like the one that took place in Minnesota last year. And we know that investments in infrastructure will create new jobs and make our people safer. The people who are calling our offices angry about the bailout for Wall Street are saying, ``Wait a minute. What about us? What about us?'' And that is exactly the question we are here to answer today. Today, Democrats are saying to the American people, to the people of Massachusetts, ``We hear you.'' That's why we have an economic stimulus bill that will provide a $60 billion jump start to the economy. In this bill, Democrats will provide almost $37 billion in infrastructure development. That means more highway construction, funding for passenger rail improvements, increases in clean water and flood control. There is funding for school modernization and public housing in this bill. These are not just improvements in our infrastructure--which are badly needed after years of neglect by this President and his allies in this Congress, these are jobs programs. More funding for infrastructure programs will mean more people being hired to build roads and bridges, to repair schools, and to improve our waterways. Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased that we are providing funding for communities like those in my district that are struggling with complying with clean water requirements and are looking to the Federal Government for just a little bit of help. As a Member of Congress who represents a regional airport, I know how important airport improvement grants really are. In this bill, Democrats provide $600 million for AIG grants to help regional airports alleviate the massive congestion at our major hubs. In this bill, Democrats provide $1.6 billion for development of energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies. In particular, $1 billion will be dedicated to an advanced battery loan program, which will allow for U.S. companies to invest and develop technology for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. In this bill, Democrats provide an increase in the Medicaid matching rate to prevent cuts in health insurance and health care services for low-income children and families. And in this bill, Democrats provided an additional 7 weeks of extended benefits for workers who have exhausted regular unemployment compensation. Extending unemployment benefits is one of the quickest, most cost-effective forms of economic stimulus because workers who have lost their paychecks spend benefits quickly. And very importantly, Mr. Speaker, in this bill, Democrats provide $2.6 billion to address rising food costs for seniors, people with disabilities, and very poor families with children. We know that millions of our fellow citizens are struggling to put food on the table. Seniors are being forced to choose between eating and taking their medications. And we know food stamps will provide a targeted stimulus to the economy. We know that every Federal food dollar generates twice that in economic activity. Experts at CBO and Moody's, as well as economists from across the political spectrum, agree that increasing money for food stamps is a powerful economic stimulus that can reach the low-income families who may not have benefited from the first stimulus package. Mr. Speaker, I am extremely grateful to Chairman Obey for including this provision in this bill. I am also grateful for the leadership of Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. and Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro for their advocacy on behalf of food and nutrition programs. Now, Mr. Speaker, I expect many of my friends on the other side of the aisle to oppose this package. I expect them to say that it's too much money and that it's unnecessary. Well, if I'm right, then it will show the American people just how out of touch they really are. Mr. Speaker, we need a stimulus package today, not just for Wall Street, but for Main Street. People are struggling, and they need and deserve our help. They don't need your empathy, they don't need your sympathy, they don't need your kind words, they don't want you to feel their pain, what they want is your vote, your vote on a stimulus package that will help them, that will benefit everyday people on Main Street. So I hope the Republicans, Mr. Speaker, will finally join us in meeting the real needs of the working families of this Nation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Again, I think I responded to the gentleman. I would just say two other things that I think are important to make note of. The gentleman, while his party was in control for 12 years, consistently voted for budgets that underfunded the very programs that we are talking about. Secondly, when he talks about a closed process, I don't recall a single incidence when the gentleman ever voted against his party on a closed rule when in fact his party was in control. So let's get back to the point of this bill, which is to provide everyday people, who have been neglected by this President and by his allies in the Republican Congress for too long, this is to provide a little relief, to try to stimulate some job creation, to try to help with infrastructure, with rebuilding schools, with health care. I mean, the President of the United States is coming before the Nation saying $700 billion, I don't want to pay for it, for a bailout for Wall Street, and then he is telling us we can't do anything to help people on Main Street. I would like to yield a minute to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). Point of Order

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

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield an additional 1 minute.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the gentleman voted against H.R. 3508 and, hopefully, he can offer a better explanation to his constituents. At this point I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin). (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just say I have a great deal of respect for my friend from Arizona, but I have to respond by saying that another tax cut is not going to rebuild a broken bridge in Massachusetts that because of years of underfunding and years of a lack of commitment by the Federal Government is now dangerous. A tax giveaway to an oil company, another tax giveaway to an oil company is not going to build a school in California or Arizona or anywhere else, and another corporate tax break is not going to provide anybody health care. The bottom line is that I will respectfully say to the gentleman that this Democratic Congress has been way more fiscally responsible, by light-years, than his party has been. Bill Clinton left office and left this country with a surplus. We now have the biggest debt in the history of this country. We have a war in Iraq that is $10 billion a month, and nobody on the other side believes that we have an obligation to pay for it. It goes on our credit card. We cannot neglect the basic needs of this country, which we have been doing, unfortunately, for the last 8 years. We need to get back to basics. I yield the gentleman 30 seconds.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me say with regard to the rural school issue, I was very proud to be able to vote on behalf of rural schools when the gentleman voted against it. I'm sorry he did that. But what we are talking about here today is an economic stimulus package to help everyday people. This is to help working people, to help people who have lost their jobs, to help people afford their health care, to help communities rebuild their roads and bridges and put people back to work. This is to help rebuild our schools. This is a bill to provide much-needed resources to our communities who have been neglected for far too long by this President and his Republican allies in this Congress. This country, this economy, is in trouble. That is no secret to anyone here. Read the newspapers, turn on the news, it is there. We need to do something. What we need to do is not just bail out Wall Street, we need to help people on Main Street. People are tired. They are sick and tired of the rhetoric, the expressions of sympathy and the speeches by politicians who say ``I get it.'' ``I know things are bad in your community, I feel your pain.'' What they want us to do is to take action, to actually vote on something that means something in their lives. This economic stimulus package invests in highway infrastructure. It invests to help rebuild our crumbling schools. It invests in clean water projects and in transit and Amtrak. It invests in public housing. It invests in energy development to help create green-collar jobs to get this economy moving in the right direction. It extends unemployment benefits. The gentleman from Michigan talked about the plight of so many workers who, because of this lousy economy, have lost their jobs and have exhausted their unemployment benefits. We are all talking about bailing out Wall Street, but we can't extend unemployment benefits to these workers? I mean, shame on us if you can't vote for that. Medicaid assistance is in this bill. Food assistance is in this bill. There is not a community in the United States of America, I am sad to say, that is hunger free. Go to any grocery store in your district and people will complain about the high cost of food. There are people in poverty and there are people who are working families who cannot afford their groceries. They need help. That is what this bill is all about. So for the life of me, with all that is going on in this country, with all that is happening to this economy, for the life of me I can't understand why anyone would vote against this stimulus package. This is a good bill. Chairman Obey deserves great credit for putting this together the way he did. It is not perfect. It doesn't include everything, but it is help. It is real help to real people, to everyday people, to working people, to people who have lost their jobs. This is absolutely necessary that we pass it. And we need to work with the President to make this part of the package. The material previously referred by Mr. Hastings of Washington is as follows: Amendment to H. Res. 1507 Offered by Rep. Hastings of Washington Strike all after the resolved clause and insert the following: That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 7110) making supplemental appropriations for job creation and preservation, infrastructure investment, and economic and energy assistance for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against the bill are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, and any amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means; (2) the amendment relating to the reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act printed in section 3 of this resolution, if offered by Representative Walden of Oregon or his designee, which shall be in order without intervention of any point of order, shall be considered as read, and shall be separately debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent, and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 7110 pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated by the Speaker. Sec. 3. The amendment referred to in section 1 is as follows: At the end of the bill add the following new section:

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

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

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, on June 1, 2008, a great man passed way--William Patrick Ford, human rights advocate and the brother of martyred Maryknoll Sister, Ita Ford. I had the privilege of knowing Bill Ford for many, many years. I was honored to call him my friend, but he was also someone who I admired, respected, and looked to as a model of how a man should live his life. Like so many outside of Bill's family, I first came to know Bill because I became active in seeking to bring to justice those in El Salvador responsible for ordering and carrying out the murder of Bill's sister, Maryknoll Sister Ita Ford, and three other American churchwomen in December 1980. Bill was a very skilled lawyer, who worked for an important Wall Street law firm. But he lived his life humbly, fully, and with integrity. He understood in the marrow of his bones the meaning of compassion, justice and mercy. Every year, Bill would faithfully travel to El Salvador to visit Ita's grave, sometimes alone, and more often in the company of other Ford family members or relatives of another of the murdered churchwomen. On one of those occasions when Bill was making his annual pilgrimage to his sister's grave when I happened to be in El Salvador on congressional work. I asked Bill if I could accompany him on his trip to the remote Chalatanango province where the gravesites of the four churchwomen are located. This was during the middle of the Salvadoran civil war, I might add. It was one of my most memorable days in El Salvador, and I will treasure the memory of our conversation during that long, often anxious, jeep ride. In December 2005, I joined the families of Sisters Ita Ford, Maura Clark and Dorothy Kazel, and of lay missionary Jean Donovan at events throughout El Salvador commemorating the 25th anniversary of the churchwomen's deaths. Nearly 300 people from around the world came to El Salvador to take part in these reflections, and hundreds more Salvadorans participated. I was honored to walk in the footsteps and recall the lives and contributions of these four remarkable American women. And there, at the emotional center of it all, were the families, and for me, especially Bill and his wife, Mary Ann. Madam Speaker, Bill passed away in his home, surrounded by his family--Mary Ann and their children William, John, Miriam, Ruth, Elizabeth and Rebecca, and their eight grandchildren. He will be missed, and he will always be remembered and cherished in our memories of him. [From The New York Times, June 3, 2008] William P. Ford, 72, Rights Advocate, Dies (By Dennis Hevesi) William P. Ford, a former Wall Street lawyer who spent more than two decades seeking to bring high-ranking military officials to justice after his sister and three other American churchwomen were murdered in El Salvador's civil war in the 1980s, died on Sunday at his home in Montclair, N.J. He was 72. The cause was esophageal cancer, his son William Ford III said. Mr. Ford's efforts eventually led to a $54.6 million liability ruling against two former Salvadoran generals in a 2002 civil trial in Florida, where the generals were living after being granted residence by the United States. Although the ruling was not directly connected to the murders of Mr. Ford's sister and the other women, it resulted largely from his long and tenacious campaign. The federal court jury found Jose Guillermo Garcia, El Salvador's former defense minister, and Carlos Eugenio Vides Casanova, its former National Guard commander, liable for lasting injuries suffered by three Salvadoran immigrants to the United States who were tortured under the generals' command. ``We pursued the case, with Bill in the lead,'' Michael Posner, president of Human Rights First, said on Monday. ``In an extraordinary way, he went beyond simply grieving the loss of his sister; he became a leading advocate for justice in El Salvador.'' Mr. Ford had been an influential figure in the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, which in 2004 became Human Rights First. On the night of Dec. 2, 1980, shortly after the start of El Salvador's civil war, Mr. Ford's sister, Ita, a Maryknoll sister; another member of the same order, Maura Clarke; the Ursuline sister Dorothy Kazel; and a lay missionary, Jean Donovan, were abducted, raped and shot to death. The next day, peasants discovered their bodies beside an isolated road and buried them in a common grave. The van they had been driving when they were stopped at a military checkpoint turned up 20 miles away, burned and gutted. The killings came as the United States was beginning a decade-long, $7 billion aid effort to prevent left-wing guerrillas from coming to power in El Salvador, and the case quickly became the focus of a bitter policy debate about Central America. ``This particular act of barbarism,'' a 1993 State Department report said, ``did more to inflame the debate over El Salvador in the United States than any other single incident.'' In 1984, four national guardsmen were convicted of murder in El Salvador and were sentenced to 30 years in prison. After 17 years of silence, the guardsmen said they had acted after receiving ``orders from above.'' Their admissions were made to a delegation from the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, including Mr. Ford. For years, Mr. Ford lobbied politicians and made speeches, charging that the Salvadoran government had failed to conduct even a rudimentary investigation into the murders. In 1981, he pressed his case with the American ambassador to El Salvador, Dean Hinton, and the Salvadoran president, Jose poleon Duarte. Mr. Ford also criticized the Reagan administration. The government, he said, ``is so obsessed with the East-West confrontation that they are willing to tolerate the murder of American citizens in El Salvador.'' The Salvadoran junta had killed more than 30,000 people, he said. It was an unusual stance for a lawyer who had been on the staff of the New York law firm where Richard M. Nixon and John Mitchell had worked before Mr. Nixon became president and Mr. Mitchell became the attorney general. A year after his sister's murder, Mr. Ford said he had been ``radicalized'' by American support for a government ``which is no more than a group of gangsters in uniform.'' William Patrick Ford was born in Bay Ridge, Brooklyn, on April 28, 1936, the son of William and Mildred O'Beirne Ford. Besides his son William, Mr. Ford is survived by his wife of 47 years, the former Mary Anne Heyman; another son, John; four daughters, Miriam Ford, Ruth Ford, Elizabeth Ford and Rebecca Ford; a sister, Irene Coriaty; and eight grandchildren. Mr. Ford graduated from Fordham University in 1960 and earned his law degree at St. John's University in 1966. He was a law clerk to a federal judge and later a founding partner of the law firm Ford Marrin Esposito Witmeyer & Gleser. Litigating securities and product-liability cases took a back seat for Mr. Ford after that day in 1980. Of the American government, he said a year later, ``You can't take seriously the inscription at the base of the Statue of Liberty if at the same time you are sending arms, ammunition, trucks and police equipment to a junta which is murdering its own citizens.'' This article has been revised to reflect the following correction: Correction: June 4, 2008. Because of an editing error, an obituary on Tuesday about William P. Ford, who spent decades pursuing justice after his sister and three other American churchwomen were murdered in El Salvador, misidentified the religious order of one of the slain women, Dorothy Kazel. She was an Ursuline sister, not a Maryknoll sister.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Neither do I, so I reserve my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Hodes).

Mr. McGOVERN. How much time do I have, Mr. Speaker?

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1488 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, technically, this point of order is about whether or not to consider this rule, and ultimately the underlying bill. And in reality, it's about trying to block this bill without any opportunity for debate and without any opportunity for an up-or-down vote on keeping the government running, providing hurricane and other disaster assistance and other critical items. So I think that that is just wrong. And I hope that my colleagues will vote ``yes'' so we can consider this important legislation on its merits and not kill it on a procedural motion. We need to move forward with this legislation. We need to keep this government running. Those who oppose this bill can vote against final passage, but we need to move forward. So I would urge my colleagues to not allow a purely procedural tactic to kill this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.