Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I just want to associate myself with the remarks of the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. I should point out that all of the earmarks are made public. They are on the Rules Committee Web site. They are available in the Appropriations Committee. I should also point out that we have instituted reforms so that what happened when the Republicans were in control, for example, when they air-dropped a provision to provide blanket immunity to drug companies and inserted it into a defense bill after everything had been closed cannot happen. I will also say that I think Members of this Congress should have the right to advocate for their districts and make decisions as to how money should be allocated. It is our responsibility as the legislative branch to have a role in where that money goes versus bureaucrats who work with the White House. I will also say that there are a lot of Republicans who have applied for and received earmarks. They have gone through this process where they had to fill out forms and vet it through the committee. I know a lot of Republicans, including some of my Republican colleagues on the Rules Committee, have earmarks on this bill because it's public. And I actually trust them to be advocates for their district. So, I would point out to my colleagues that things are very different from how they were when the Republicans were in control of this House. There is more sunshine. There is more accountability. I would urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the motion to consider. I yield back the balance of my time.

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. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1488.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I always love to listen to the gentleman from Washington State, my colleague on the Rules Committee. But I have to say that I don't think there is a single American who hasn't concluded that they have had enough of the Republicans and their misplaced priorities. We are in a financial mess right now because of their fiscal policies, and we need to try to figure out a way to dig ourselves out. But I found it interesting, I think I got the quote right, he talked about stuffing in ``unvetted earmarks.'' Well, a quick look at the earmarks, which are published, by the way, are on the Website of the Rules Committee, I see the gentleman has some earmarks in here. I don't know whether or not the portable launch and recovery system and unmanned aerial vehicle operation was unvetted and stuffed in in some secret room.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 1488 provides for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2638, the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009. The rule makes in order a motion by the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations to concur in the Senate amendment with a House amendment. The rule provides 1 hour of debate on the motion, equally divided and controlled by the Committee on Appropriations. The House amendment inserts language for continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2009, making emergency supplemental appropriations and covering three regular fiscal year 2009 appropriations bills, each in a separate division. Division A provides continuing appropriations for all agencies and activities that would be covered by the regular fiscal year 2009 appropriations bills until enactment of the applicable regular appropriations bill or until March 6, 2009, whichever occurs first. Emergency FY09 appropriations for LIHEAP and advanced technology vehicle manufacturing loans are also included. Division B provides $22.9 billion in emergency supplemental appropriations for relief and recovery from hurricanes, floods, and other natural disasters. Division C provides $487.7 billion in FY09 funding for the Department of Defense. Division D provides $40 billion in FY09 funding for the Department of Homeland Security. Division E provides $72.9 billion in FY09 funding for Military Construction and Veterans Affairs. Mr. Speaker, let me begin with the good news, a fact that my friends on the other side of the aisle cannot refute. This is the last time that we will have to deal with Bush's budget priorities. After 8 years of President Bush's fiscal mismanagement, we will soon vote on the final Bush appropriations bill. Eight years ago, George Bush became the 43rd President of the United States. Are the American people better off after 8 years of George Bush? The answer is a clear and resounding no. His administration and the then Republican-controlled Congress inherited a $5.6 trillion budget surplus from President Clinton, and they turned that into about a $3.2 trillion deficit and have left us with a national debt that stands at $9.8 trillion. That is the biggest debt we have had in the history of the United States of America. Because of George Bush, we are stuck in a quagmire in Iraq. Because of George Bush, more people are living in poverty and more people are going hungry than they were 8 years ago. And because of this President and his administration, we have the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Just 40 days from the election and 117 days until the next president is inaugurated, President Bush is asking for a $700 billion blank check to fix the mess on Wall Street that he and his allies helped create. Thankfully, this continuing resolution will keep the government up and running until March 6 of 2009 and hopefully, at that time, we will have a President with a very different set of priorities. The process getting here hasn't been perfect. I am disappointed that we weren't able to consider all of the appropriations bills here in the House under regular order. But my Republican colleagues share much of the blame for this inaction. Every time the Republicans had an opportunity to act like statesmen and do the business of the American people, they decided to do the opposite, to play partisan games in attempts to score political points. Instead of acting like honest brokers, they decided to demagog these bills until there was no ability for the House to act on them. We should all remember last year when the Republicans tried to filibuster the Agriculture appropriations bill by offering silly amendment after silly amendment, cutting a program by $50,000, then $75,000 and then $100,000. And we should all remember earlier this year when the Republicans attempted to kill the Labor-HHS appropriations bill by replacing it in committee with the Interior bill. So when my friends on the other side of the aisle complain about the lack of regular order, I would suggest they take a good, long look in the mirror. And this bill isn't perfect. Because of the intransigence by the White House, there are a lot of programs that I care deeply about that are underfunded. But this is the best product we could hope for under these circumstances. Thanks to the hard work and dedication of the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, David Obey, and his incredible staff, there are some bright spots in this bill. First and foremost are the increases in LIHEAP and WIC. This bill fully funds LIHEAP, something the Republicans never did, and increases funding for the WIC program by $1 billion over 2008. At a time when energy and food prices are skyrocketing, we cannot and will not ignore the plight of Americans who are struggling to heat their homes or put food on the table. I am also pleased the bill includes $23.5 million more for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program. This increase will prevent 70,000 low-income women, infants, children and seniors from losing access to food. I am also pleased that there is a $2.5 billion increase in Pell Grants. Unfortunately, this will not restore Pell Grants to the original purchasing power, but it is a good start that will prevent potential cuts in student aid that could come during the school year. Another critical component of this continuing resolution is the disaster aid package. Earlier this year, Iowa and the Midwest were hit with disastrous floods. Wildfires have caused major damage in the West. And this hurricane season has already been deadly and costly with Hurricanes Gustav and Ike causing major damage in the gulf coast States. This continuing resolution includes almost $23 billion to address these natural disasters. Funding will be directed to FEMA, the Community Development Block Grants Program, the Army Corps of Engineers, and several other important disaster recovery efforts that will help these ravaged areas across our Nation. I am also pleased that there is $100 million to help Haiti recover from Ike and other hurricanes, and another $100 million for international food aid to provide emergency food assistance. In addition, the fiscal year 2009 Defense, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Homeland Security appropriations bills are all included in this continuing resolution. There is no higher priority than providing funding for our military and for the men and women who defend our Nation. Finally, let me comment on what is not in this bill. Unfortunately, and at the insistence of the White House, there is no economic stimulus package, no new money for food stamps, unemployment insurance or Medicaid. There is no new money for transportation projects to help jumpstart our ailing economy, and there is no ban on offshore drilling. Mr. Speaker, I simply cannot understand how this President and his Republican partners in the House and Senate can ask for a $700 billion blank check for Wall Street, but oppose $50 billion to help people afford to put food on the table or to make ends meet while they look for a job in this ailing economy or prevent States from cutting health care benefits to people on Medicaid. Republicans like to say that people have to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. Well, it's hard to do that if you can't afford any boots. During these tough economic times, it is critical that we help all Americans, not just the fat cats on Wall Street. Yet as Katrina and this economic crisis here have shown, the Republican Party has no interest in helping the people who need it most. Again, Mr. Speaker, the good news is that this is the last time that we will have to deal with this President and his budgetary priorities. Help, I believe, is on the way. With a new administration and more Democrats in Congress, we will be able to finally act on these priorities of the American people. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Reclaiming my time, I would say to the gentleman that all of the earmarks in here went through the same process that he went through. So it is just a little bit frustrating to hear some of my friends on the other side of the aisle complain about earmarks when they have earmarks in this bill. Mr. Speaker, I would also remind people that in this bill is $22.9 billion for disaster relief to deal with the disasters in Iowa and Florida. I will point out to my friends in this Chamber that my Republican friends on the Rules Committee all voted last night to block this bill from coming to the floor and block this disaster relief from getting to where it needs to go. At this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Braley). (Mr. BRALEY of Iowa asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman. I can simply say to the gentleman, all of my earmarks are vetted. I hope yours are. I mean, there is a process here. The deal is that----

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

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me just rise to associate myself with the remarks of my colleague from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) on the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. Colombia continues to be the most dangerous place in the world to be a member of a union. It is number 2 in the number of internally displaced people, the largest number of internally displaced people, second in the world. And extrajudicial killings by security forces are on the rise. So if we're going to have a trade agreement, and human rights matters, then I don't think it's too much to ask the Colombian security forces to stop killing and targeting its workers.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to my friend for 30 seconds.

Mr. McGOVERN. I would also disagree that a Colombia Free Trade agreement is going to help create more jobs in Ohio or Massachusetts or anywhere else for that matter. Mr. Speaker, I also, going back to what the gentleman from Washington State had talked about earlier, he mentioned stuffing in unvetted earmarks. I've been going through the bill here, and I found that the ranking Republican member of the Rules Committee has a number of earmarks, too. You may want to check with him whether or not he vetted them and whether they went through the proper process. I assume they did, because I would not expect anything less from him. But I want to point out again that as you go through this bill, you see a number of earmarks that are attributed directly to the Republicans. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. I would just say that the American people can see what earmarks exist in this bill and who is responsible for those earmarks because it is open. What the gentleman is complaining about is he can't play politics with some of the earmarks on the floor today. The other thing is, I will restate what the chairman of the Appropriations Committee said. The reason why the Defense appropriations bill is in this continuing resolution is because of the request of the Republican administration. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, if I could yield myself 30 seconds, I just want to say to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) that it has been a pleasure and honor to serve with him in the Congress, and I think I speak for Democrats and Republicans when I say that we will miss him. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to ask the gentleman from Washington whether he has any other speakers.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Speaker, it's important that we pass this continuing resolution for a number of reasons. One is it contains money for LIHEAP. With the high cost of energy, we need to make sure that people have the emergency assistance so they can heat their homes, so they don't have to choose between heating their homes and their medication, or heating their homes and food. We need to support this bill because it has money to help combat hunger--which unfortunately, under this administration's watch, has gotten worse in this country. There are people in the United States who are hungry, and that is something that every one of us should be ashamed of. We need to pass this bill because it contains money for disaster relief. We have had hurricanes in Florida and Texas. We have had floods in Iowa. People are in need of assistance from the Federal Government to help rebuild. Why anybody would want to hold that up is beyond me. We need to support this bill because it supports our troops. And we need to support this bill because it supports our veterans. We have a lot of talk around here about how we have to support our troops and veterans, and yet here we have an effort to try to block a bill that will do just that. Mr. Speaker, this bill is about keeping the government running. And I gotta tell you, I, for one, am glad that this bill will take us into March because hopefully in March we will have a different leadership in the White House; we will be moving in a vastly different direction than the one this President and his Republican allies in this Congress have taken us over the last 8 years. We are in a fiscal mess. Our economy is on the verge of collapse as a result of the incompetence and the inability of this administration to lead us in the right direction. Enough. Enough. It is time for us to move forward. It is time for us to get this work done. I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and a ``yes'' vote on the rule. The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is as follows: Amendment to H. Res. 1488 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington At the end of the resolution add the following new section: Sec. 4. It shall not be in order in the House to consider a concurrent resolution providing for an adjournment of either House of Congress until comprehensive energy legislation has been enacted into law that includes provisions designed to-- (A) allow states to expand the exploration and extraction of natural resources along the Outer Continental Shelf; (B) open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and oil shale reserves to environmentally prudent exploration and extraction; (C) extend expiring renewable energy incentives; (D) encourage the streamlined approval of new refining capacity and nuclear power facilities; (E) encourage advanced research and development of clean coal, coal-to-liquid, and carbon sequestration technologies; and (F) minimize drawn out legal challenges that unreasonably delay or prevent actual domestic energy production.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding and for his generous words. Madam Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to the many Members and staff who worked on the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission Establishment Act. It was truly a collaborative, bipartisan effort, and a genuine desire to pay tribute to the work and legacy of our former colleague, Tom Lantos. I want to thank Chairman Howard Berman and Ranking Member Ileana Ros- Lehtinen for all of the support and guidance they have provided. They, and their incredible staffs, were true partners in crafting this resolution. I especially want to thank my colleague from Virginia, my fellow cochair of the Human Rights Caucus, Frank Wolf, for welcoming me as his new partner and for his leadership in shaping this resolution. I also want to thank his staff, Molly Miller, Elizabeth Hoffman, and Elyse Anderson, who contributed so much time and careful attention to the resolution before us today. I also want to thank my staff, Cindy Buhl and Keith Stern, who have done magnificent work in making this resolution a reality. Madam Speaker, I can't think of a more fitting tribute to Congressman Tom Lantos than institutionalizing human rights work by Members of this House. This commission will be a living, breathing legacy to the vision and inspiration of Tom Lantos. It reminds us that protecting and promoting human rights is not just the right thing to do, but it has the capacity of transforming us, of making us better people, better Members of Congress, and better citizens of the world. That's what helping to save lives around the world can do to you. That is what giving voice to the voiceless can do to you. That is what standing up for something, standing for the universal declaration of human rights can do to you. The Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission will promote and protect human rights, whether that is the freedom to worship as you choose, run a newspaper or be a journalist without interference, organize a union, expect fair and equal justice before the courts, or receive fair treatment regardless of your gender, race, or your sexual orientation or your racial or ethnic heritage. And most importantly, it is the right to live your life, raise your family, and carry out your daily activities without the constant threat of being killed, jailed or disappearing. When Speaker Pelosi appointed me to be just the second Democratic cochair in the history of the Human Rights Caucus, I couldn't quite grasp what it would mean to try to follow in the footsteps of Tom Lantos. Then Annette Lantos gave me a call, and Kathryn Cameron Porter came in to visit me, and they gave me their support and their blessing. We talked about how to strengthen the structure and permanence of the caucus, how to encourage and support other Members, especially new Members of Congress to become active on human rights issues so the United States will continue to be recognized throughout the world as a leader in the defense of human rights. It was in this spirit that the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission Establishment Act gradually took form and came into being. Madam Speaker, there is one other person I would like to recognize and thank for all his knowledge and insights in the many discussions and process of establishing this commission, and that is Hans Hogrefe. Hans handles the human rights portfolio for the Foreign Affairs Committee, and he also staffs the Congressional Human Rights Caucus. I cannot think of anyone else on the Hill who has his institutional memory on human rights legislation and the many human rights issues that Members have worked on over the past 25 years. He is a human rights encyclopedia, and I want to thank him for his dedication to the cause of human rights. Madam Speaker, I believe establishing the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission will allow Members of Congress to take human rights work to a new level, and it will better serve and support the Members of this House as they take up human rights issues. As I have often said, it is my strong belief that if the United States is going to stand for anything, it needs to stand out loud and foursquare for human rights. I look forward to working with Frank Wolf and taking on this task, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution and join us in our work.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Auclair's Market in Somerset, MA, which is celebrating its 90th anniversary this week. The celebration also include a well-deserved ``Happy 90th Birthday'' to Fernand C.E. Auclair, whose father Francis started the business in 1918. For all those years, Auclair's Market has combined the highest- quality food with excellent customer service. In an era when giant chain stores dominate the marketplace, Auclair's has remained steadfast in its dedication to the Greater Fall River area. Things have certainly changed since the store first opened on Brightman Street in Fall River. At that time, meats were presented on cold marble slabs and the market's doors were left open in the winter to help preserve the food. Today, the store provides its customers with all the modem conveniences and several of its own specialties. Let me assure you, Madame Speaker, you haven't truly lived until you've grilled a steak with Auclair's Steakhouse marinade. What hasn't changed is the Auclair family's commitment to the community. As Denis Auclair, third-generation owner recently told the Fall River Herald-News, ``We can say it's our business, but it's our customers'' store. Without them, we're nothing.'' Madam Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues in the House to join me in congratulating Auclair s Market on their 90th Anniversary and wishing Fernand C.E. Auclair a very happy 90th birthday.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I know this debate's getting a little wacky, but I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan. In those 5 minutes that he spoke, the big oil companies that the Republicans have been so supportive of have made $1.7 million in profits. I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this debate is nuts. The Childers amendment, among other things, would allow stockpiling of military- style weapons with high capacity ammunition magazines. It would undermine Federal anti-gun trafficking laws. It would prohibit D.C. from enacting commonsense gun laws. It would repeal commonsense restrictions on gun possession by dangerous unqualified persons. It repeals all age limits for the possession and carrying of long guns, including assault rifles. It allows gun possession by many persons who have committed violent or drug-related misdemeanor crimes. It allows many persons who are dangerously mentally ill to obtain firearms. It repeals registration requirements for firearms. It repeals all safe storage laws. Mr. Speaker, it is my view that, if, in fact, we enacted the Childers amendment, that we would create a situation where we put more people in danger. This is not about security for the citizens of D.C. This, quite frankly, is about insecurity. What this amendment is is one big fat wet kiss to the National Rifle Association. At this point, Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, Ms. Eleanor Holmes Norton.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana for his interesting speech on drilling. I have to tell him it hasn't convinced me to support the Childers amendment on guns. Maybe he's implying that more guns on the street means cheaper gas prices, but I don't think he even believes that. At this point, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Childers).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 1434 provides for the consideration of H.R. 6842, the National Capital Security and Safety Act, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI. The rule makes in order the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the report if offered by Representative Childers. That amendment is debatable for 1 hour. The rule also provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, I stand before this House as a supporter of the second amendment, but also as a strong supporter of sensible gun safety legislation. I also stand here as a strong supporter of the elected Government of the District of Columbia, and I respect their right to enact and execute their own laws. Apparently, and unfortunately, not all of my colleagues agree. They believe that Members of Congress from other States have the right to dictate matters that are best left to local governments. On June 26, 2008, by a 5-4 decision in the Heller case, the Supreme Court upheld a ruling of the Federal Appeals Court which found the District's ban on handgun possession to be unconstitutional. It is important to note that the court stipulated that this right is not unlimited; they reaffirmed that ``any gun, anywhere'' is not constitutionally protected. In response to the ruling, the D.C. City Council passed, and the mayor signed, emergency legislation to temporarily allow District residents to have pistols in their homes. The council will continue their work this week by making those changes permanent. Mr. Speaker, the elected D.C. City Council and the elected mayor are committed to complying with the Heller decision. The plaintiff in the case, Dick Heller, was quickly allowed to keep a gun in his home. But that is not good enough for my friends on the other side of this debate. They believe it is not good enough for the D.C. Government to comply with the court's ruling. They believe they can take this opportunity to shove the agenda of a single special interest, the gun lobby, down the throats of the citizens of the District of Columbia. Mr. Speaker, it is beyond insulting; it is arrogant. I ask my friends on the other side, how would they like it if Congress enacted laws that took away local control in their own communities? Maybe Congress should decide whether the ``Adventures of Huckleberry Finn'' can be assigned in the Dallas County schools. Maybe Congress should decide whether a new Wal-Mart can be built in Tupelo, Mississippi. Maybe Congress should decide how many firefighters the Macon, Georgia Fire Department should have. I promise you, Mr. Speaker, that if we tried to bring any of those things to the House floor, my friends on the other side of the aisle would be down here screaming about big government and local control. But when it comes to doing the bidding of the gun lobby, they have decided that Congress knows best. It is bad enough that the citizens of the District of Columbia have to endure taxation without representation every single day. And it is bad enough that even though soldiers from the District of Columbia can fight and die wearing the uniform of the United States, they do not have the right to a full vote in the United States Congress. We should be strengthening the District's right to govern itself, not trouncing on it. For years, Congress treated the District of Columbia as its little fiefdom. The amendment made in order under this rule would take us back to those bad old days. Again, the purpose of the underlying bipartisan legislation before us today is to require that the D.C. Government comply with the Heller decision within 180 days. There is simply no need, there is no justification for this Congress to go beyond the Heller decision and impose sweeping changes to the self-governance of D.C. But that is exactly what the Heller amendment would do, easing access to guns, eliminating gun registration, and making D.C. law enforcement's job to protect its residents and the visitors that come here that much harder. This will, in no way, make our Nation's capital a safer place. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Congresswoman Holmes Norton for her steadfast representation of the District, and for bringing H.R. 6842 to the floor today. I urge my colleagues to support her legislation and to vote ``no'' on the Childers amendment, and I look forward to the debate today. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York, the Chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government, which oversees the District of Columbia, Mr. Serrano.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from the District of Columbia.

Mr. McGOVERN. I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1434.

Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentleman yield?