Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, let me reiterate something I said earlier in the debate, and that is the Republican Congress and this Republican President have made a mess of this economy. Their legacy is a lousy economy. There are more people every day losing their jobs. Their legacy is that they have left my kids with a $300 billion deficit and a $9.4 trillion debt, the largest debt in the history of the United States of America. That's their legacy. That's their great economic achievement. Their legacy is basically no energy policy except whatever the oil companies want, and that's what they have done when they were in power. Whatever the oil companies want, the oil companies get. And quite frankly, it kind of took my breath away when I heard my colleague talk about the oil companies as ``our friends.'' Well, with friends like the oil companies, the consumers do not need enemies. In 2002, the profits of the oil companies were at about $30 billion. In 2007, it's $123.3 billion. And yet we have seen rising gas prices. The consumers have been gouged. These oil companies have ripped off the citizens of this country. The fact of the matter is that there are 68 million acres onshore and offshore in the United States that are leased by oil companies open to drilling and actually under lease, but they're not developed. They have 68 million acres. The fact is if oil companies tapped the 68 million Federal acres of leased land, it could generate an estimated 4.8 million barrels of oil a day, six times what ANWR would produce at its peak. The fact is 80 percent of the oil available on the Outer Continental Shelf is in regions that are already open to leasing, but the oil companies have not decided it's worth their time to drill there. The fact is that drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge wouldn't yield any oil for 10 years and then would only save the consumer 1.8 cents per gallon in 2025. The bottom line is, Madam Speaker, is that these oil companies choose not to drill for more oil. They choose instead to do what they're doing and put the burden on the American consumer. I have heard the issue about we need to expand refinery capacity. Well, we currently have excess oil refinery capacity. According to the Energy Information Administration, our refineries are currently running at 88 percent capacity, well below the 95 to 98 percent capacity, use rates we've seen this time of year for the last decade. Now, no new oil refineries have been built in the last 30 years because major oil companies have not sought to build them. They have the ability. They've not sought to build them. ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, BP, and Shell have publicly stated that they have no plans to build new refineries. Instead, they prefer to expand existing facilities. Shell, ConocoPhillips, and BP all testified that they were unaware of any environmental regulations preventing them from building new refineries or expanding existing ones. So there is nothing in the way that's preventing them from expansion. And internal memos from oil companies make it clear that oil companies have decided that they needed to reduce refinery capacity to drive up their profits. They don't care. They don't care about the consumer. All they care about is profits. And for too long, our energy policy under the Republican Congress and this Republican President has been to give the oil companies whatever they want. We have done that, and we are now paying the price. I should also point out that this Congress has enacted a number of pieces of legislation to try to deal with this issue. Interestingly enough, most of them have been either vetoed or threatened to be vetoed by the President. It's also interesting to note that among those that the President has threatened to veto are legislation that would take away the tax breaks and subsidies that we provide Big Oil, the companies that are making record profits, and put that into renewable clean forms of energy. That's what the administration is aghast at. They can't believe that we'd want to take away taxpayer subsidies to Big Oil, the companies that are now ripping off the American consumer, and put that into alternative energy research and development so that we're not so reliant on oil and we could become more energy independent. We have tried to take the lead on energy independence in this Congress, but we have run into roadblocks by the Republicans here in the House, Republicans in the Senate, and this administration. I would also point out that the American people get it. One of the reasons why Republicans are losing elections is because the American people are fed up with their policies. They want a new direction, and they will get a new direction come November with an expanded Democratic majority here in the House and in the Senate and a Democratic President. Finally, Madam Speaker, let me just once again reiterate to my colleagues the importance of the underlying legislation. The Federal Employees Paid Parents Leave Act does not change the fundamental principles of the Family and Medical Leave Act in any way. The bill does not expand the number of weeks of leave available to workers under FMLA, the bill does not expand the number of employees who are eligible for FMLA leave, and the bill does not grant employees any additional sick leave. For Federal employees who are currently entitled to FMLA coverage, this bill would simply allow them to be paid for four of those weeks if used for parental use, if used to care for a newborn child or a newly adopted child. I mean, this to me is common sense. This is the right thing to do. As I said, Members talk all the time about family values. Well, here is our chance to show that we mean what we say. I would urge my colleagues to support the underlying bill. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for a unanimous consent request. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Then I will let the gentleman close, because we don't have any other speakers either.

Mr. McGOVERN. And may I ask the gentleman from Texas if he has any other speakers.

Mr. McGOVERN. May I inquire to the gentleman how many more speakers he has.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I just want to respond by saying that Members on both sides of the aisle like to talk about family values all the time. Well, this is an effort that actually puts some real action behind those words. This is about helping families. I find it somehow puzzling that anybody would think this is a radical idea. And I would say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, you know, you have messed up our economy, you have increased financial insecurity amongst working families in this country, you have done everything you can to help the oil companies at the expense of average citizens who are now paying extraordinary prices at the gas tank. I mean, you have put working families at an extreme disadvantage. This is an effort to provide a little bit of relief when somebody has a new baby or adopts a new child. Boy, to think that is a radical idea just to me defies reason. At this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), the author of this legislation.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, H. Res. 1277 provides a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 5781, the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2008. The resolution provides 1 hour of debate controlled by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and makes in order one of the two amendments submitted for consideration. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this rule and of the underlying legislation, H.R. 5781, the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2008, which in my opinion is a sensible, compassionate bill that provides Federal employees with 4 weeks of paid leave for the birth or adoption of a child. Today the Federal Government does not offer any paid time off specifically to care for an infant or newly adopted child. If a Federal employee needs time to take care of the newest addition to their family, their only option for paid leave is to use their accrued sick days and vacation time. This policy is unfair and disadvantageous to relatively new Federal employees or those who have experienced extended health problems. Having a policy that assumes Federal employees will not get sick or take vacation is unsound and needs to be rectified. Paid parental leave for Federal workers is long overdue, and it is a shame that the Federal Government, our country's largest employer, has not provided it yet. The Federal Government ought to set the standard as a family-friendly workplace, and not fall behind. And even more especially in this economic downturn, the Federal Government needs to step up and provide its families with paid leave. It is unconscionable, Madam Speaker, to ask parents to choose between their job and their new child in these harsh economic times. With two full-time working parents being the standard nowadays, forcing families to lose one salary while they face astronomical food and energy prices is unacceptable. Now some may claim that we are expanding the total amount of time a Federal employee may take off to care for a new child. Let me be clear, this bill does not expand the amount of leave currently available to Federal employees. This bill simply allows for 4 weeks of paid leave out of the 12 weeks that Federal employees currently receive under the Family and Medical Leave Act. The bill does not expand the total amount of time a person may take off under FMLA, and any claims to the contrary are simply false. Madam Speaker, it is also important to note that this legislation will not affect the strength of our Nation's military. Since the Armed Forces set their own policies for leave, active duty soldiers are exempt from H.R. 5781. However, this legislation will provide 4 weeks of paid leave to the 400,000 civilian employees of the Department of Defense that serve with our armed forces at military bases across the country and around the world. We depend on these mothers and fathers to make America safe, and providing them with 4 weeks of paid leave to care for their child is a much needed and much-deserved benefit. Lastly, providing paid parental leave is a good recruitment tool for the Federal Government. In order to attract the best and the brightest and retain talent in our Federal workforce, Congress must provide important incentives like paid parental leave. I encourage my colleagues to stand up for families by supporting this rule and the underlying bill. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material into the Record.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1277 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I visited DC Central Kitchen, where I learned about an innovative program, the Campus Kitchens Project. This is a program that uses high school and college dining facilities when the kitchen is normally closed to prepare meals for area soup kitchens and shelters. College and high school students involved in this program take a large leadership role in starting and maintaining the kitchens. Campus Kitchens helps feed hungry people in our communities today, while building tomorrow's leaders committed to ending hunger. Hunger is a political condition, and we need government action to end it, but we also need people from all sectors dedicated to doing more to end hunger. There are over 400 high schools and 100 colleges in Massachusetts alone. If each school organized a group to fight hunger in their community, just think of what could be done. I congratulate DC Central Kitchen and the Campus Kitchens project for their work, and I thank the staff and students for their commitment to ending hunger.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise reluctantly in opposition to this bill. I applaud the Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, my friend and colleague Congressman Berman, for asserting the role of the Congress and making sure that new initiatives such as the Merida Initiative are authorized. It is the right thing to do, and I look forward to working with him over the coming weeks on a number of foreign policy matters pending before the Committee. There is much to support in H.R. 6028, and there are also several troubling matters. Regarding the provisions of the bill that deal with Central America-- a region of Latin America that is very close to my heart--I believe H.R. 6028 takes several important steps forward, seriously investing in community-based solutions to youth and gang problems. H.R. 6028 provides strong support to non-security programs that address the endemic conditions giving rise to violence related to drugs, arms and human trafficking. It provides support for the U.N. International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG), especially in the areas of witness and victim protection, an initiative that merits the very strongest support by the United States and the international community. The bill also seeks to promote transparency and an end to impunity throughout Central America by strengthening police and judicial systems so that they may more effectively and successfully carry out investigations and prosecutions of those responsible for human rights violations and other criminal acts. This is all very good news, Mr. Speaker. I am very concerned that this authorizing bill fails, however, to reflect the thoughtful and critically important human rights conditions contained in the Senate and House versions of the FY 2008 supplemental appropriations on military and security-related aid to Mexico. I understand that those proposed conditions are controversial in Mexico, in large measure because of the history of the very problematic drug certification process that existed in the past. I do not believe that the human rights conditions included in the supplemental appropriations bill bear any resemblance to the flawed drug certification process, and the House and Senate Appropriations Committees took great care not to mirror that flawed certification process. By failing to include the conditions on aid provided for the Merida Initiative that are included in the Senate and House supplemental appropriations bills, passage of this authorizing measure could be viewed as an effort to weaken or eliminate those provisions from the final conference report on the supplemental that will soon be sent to the President for his signature. It is my sincere (hope that this is not the intention of bringing H.R. 6028 to the House floor at such a delicate moment. There was no reason to rush this bill before the House, since we know it has no counterpart on the Senate side. So its consideration today invites concern that its passage is indeed an attempt to influence conference negotiations on the supplemental and to send a message that human rights conditions are not welcome, and certainly not the stronger, more specific conditionality included in the Senate version of the FY08 supplemental appropriations. Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that America wants to be a good partner with Mexico on fighting drugs and ending corruption and human rights violations within Mexico's judicial system and its military and police. Over the past several weeks we have all seen the effects of the bloody rampage carried out by the drug cartels, especially those targeted at assassinating key officers and members of the Mexican National Police. I hope in other legislation that may come before the House this year that we will pay special attention to investing in drug education, prevention and treatment programs, as well as our own law enforcement agencies, so that U.S. demand for illegal drugs will also be forcefully and substantially addressed. But we cannot simply write blank checks and fail to ensure that our aid is not subject to strong conditions on human rights, transparency, justice reform and promoting and protecting the rights of civil society. These concerns are very much at the forefront of the strong Senate conditions in the FY08 appropriations bill, and are also reflected in the slightly less stringent House conditions. They should have been included in H.R. 6028, the authorizing legislation, which is where human rights conditionality appropriately belongs. So, Mr. Speaker, these are my concerns and my hopes regarding H.R. 6028, and I will be following closely the consequences of authorizing and appropriating these funds.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Richard and Loretta Veader of Seekonk, Massachusetts, on the occasion of their 50th wedding anniversary. Mr. and Mrs. Veader's life together exemplifies the finest qualities of the institution of marriage, and I applaud their commitment to their family, their faith, their community and to each other. Richard and Loretta were married on June 7, 1958 in Swansea, Massachusetts. The young couple soon established their roots in Seekonk, with the purchase of their first home. As they settled into their new community, they were blessed to welcome three beautiful daughters: Lou-Anne, Pamela and Kimberly. Despite the demands of a young family, Richard and Loretta always found time to give themselves to their church and to their community. Over the years, as their beloved church, Our Lady of Mount Carmel, underwent structural transitions, Richard and Loretta served as two of the church's first Eucharistic ministers and, to this day, continue to honor their weekly commitment to the Adoration. Together, they have also been dedicated members of the Saint Vincent DePaul Society. For more than 40 years, Richard has actively been involved with the Knights of Columbus, and from 1983-84 he was honored to hold one of the highest positions of distinction as Grand Knight. Richard and Loretta's friendly faces are a welcome sight throughout the tight-knit community of Seekonk. Their contributions to their hometown are invaluable and serve as examples to us all of how to make our world a better place. Both Richard and Loretta have spent countless hours working in the Seekonk Public Schools. Richard worked in various custodial positions at both the Pleasant Street School and the George C. Martin School while Loretta worked as a kindergarten teacher's aide at the Anne C. Greene School. Over the years, Loretta has also become a familiar face in the Seekonk Town Assessor's office and now, even after her retirement, continues to work part-time in the office of the Veterans' Agent. Along the way, Richard and Loretta have made many lasting and loving friendships, always keeping their family close at hand. Richard and Loretta's life together truly has been an inspiration to all who have had the pleasure to be in their company, especially their 3 daughters and their beloved grandchildren, Amy Lynn, Robert, Michaela, Joshua, Brittanie and Chase. On June 7, Richard and Loretta's family and friends will gather together in celebration to honor this tremendous milestone in their remarkable life together. Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I humbly ask that the United States House of Representatives join me in congratulating Richard and Loretta Veader on the occasion of their 50th wedding anniversary and wish them many more years of continued happiness and prosperity.

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, who represents the district where the WHINSEC is located, Mr. Bishop.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Chairman, let me again remind my colleagues that the names have always been public with regard to those who attended WHINSEC, and it never discouraged attendance. The only thing that's different is it's now classified and there's no transparency. I would like to yield 1 minute to the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Skelton.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Chairman, as my fellow cosponsors have said, we do not agree on the fate of WHINSEC. I would like to see it closed. They want it to stay open. But this is not a vote to shut it down. This is a vote to keep it transparent. And we have come together and we all agree that we need to restore public access to these names for reasons of accountability, transparency, and the democratic mission of our own military. Madam Chairman, look at these lists: all blacked out. Does this look like transparency? Is this what we mean by transparency? Is this democracy at work? Is this the model that we want Latin American militaries to copy? Is this what we stand for? The names were public for decades, decades, until August of 2006, and the world all of a sudden didn't just become dangerous, the world has been dangerous, especially in Latin America, for decades. Openness was the norm, not secrecy. Now, all of a sudden, everything is secret. Why? Because there is some who don't want accountability. There are some who don't want the sunshine in on those who attend this school. There are no new threats to justifying denying these names. When I visited the school a few months back, no one, nobody came forward and said to me, Please do not make the names public because it will threaten somebody. Or nobody said that the reason why all of a sudden the names became classified was because of an increase in threats. That is just not the case. That's just an excuse. The bottom line is that there are no new threats to justify denying these names to the public. We need to restore public access. This is the right thing to do. Transparency is a good thing for this Congress to support. Support the McGovern amendment.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself 2 minutes. Let me begin by thanking Chairman Skelton for his generosity and his support of this amendment. I also want to thank Defense Appropriations Chair Murtha for supporting this amendment. Madam Chairman, this amendment is quite simple. For over 40 years, the names of graduates and instructors at the former U.S. Army School of the Americas, and now the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, were available to the public. All that was required was a phone call or a letter to school officials or to file a Freedom of Information Act request, and the names were provided. Suddenly, in August 2006, the names were classified. The only reason cited by the Defense Department for denying the names was that the list includes personal information. But nothing about the request had changed. No one had asked for new information, and certainly none of a personal nature. So for the past 2 years, the names of graduates and instructors at the WHINSEC have remained secret. Well, almost secret. Names constantly pop up in WHINSEC PR material like this with the nice color pictures and names underneath them, but the public is still denied access. There doesn't seem to be a security concern when it comes to press releases. It is difficult, Madam Chairman, to understand the national security or privacy concerns raised by some when this information has been available for so many years. The WHINSEC and Defense Department have never, ever cited personal security or national security as the reason for denying the names. In over four decades of public access, not once has there ever been a whisper that military officers attending WHINSEC were targets. And these were turbulent years, with coups in the southern cones, civil wars in Central America, and insurgencies, drug lords, and armed groups in the Andes, especially in Colombia and Peru. Not a hint that attending the school was dangerous. The WHINSEC is supposed to be a model for transparency, accountability, and respect for civil society, including human rights groups and critics. What signal does the school send to its Latin American counterparts about our democratic values when it denies NGOs access to information that has been available for decades? I urge my colleagues to vote to restore public access this information. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. McGOVERN. How much time do I have left?

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 1026, recognizing the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Congressional Club. I congratulate and thank the Club for its century of service to Members and their families. When a Member is first elected, one of the first events his or her spouse will be invited to is a welcome at the Congressional Club, bringing together both Republican and Democratic spouses in friendship as they adjust to their new lives in public service. Throughout the year, there are social opportunities to get to know women and men from around the country and even around the world as the Club sometimes hosts events with the international community, such as the recent Diplomatic Parade of Nations. The Club also draws on its members' talents and energies for designated non-political, non- partisan service projects. In a city that can sometimes be known for its political tensions, the Congressional Club offers a longstanding oasis of good will and friendship for Congressional couples and families which share a great deal in common. It is a tradition that has helped build a community for 100 years and I hope will continue to do so for centuries to come.