Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California, my very good, good friend, Mr. Dreier. All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume. General Leave

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 8 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. McGOVERN. We will reserve our time at this point.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 599 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, facts are a stubborn thing. At this point, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the majority leader.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am reserving at this time because I am the last speaker on my side.

Mr. McGOVERN. No, I do not, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. McGOVERN. Let me simply say to the gentleman that I very much regret the tone that the gentleman is taking here today.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me finish what I was about to say to the gentleman from Texas. I very much regret the tone of his remarks here on the floor today. Last night the gentleman talked about the need for civility and the need for us to have more comity in this Chamber. It is clear today that he obviously lost sight of at least the spirit of his remarks last night. I regret that very much. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. McGOVERN. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 599.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 599 provides for further consideration of the FY 2008 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration appropriations. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, and I rise in strong support of the underlying bill. I want to thank my dear friend from Connecticut, Rosa DeLauro, the chairwoman of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee for her work on this bill and her passion for fighting hunger in this country and around the world. I also want to commend Ranking Member Kingston and Chairman Obey and Ranking Member Lewis for all of their efforts and their hard work. I very much regret that we have gotten to this point. I do not take the idea of structuring debate on appropriation bills lightly. Unfortunately, we have gotten to the point where structuring debate on the Agriculture appropriations bill is the only way to pass the bill before we break for the district work period. As the distinguished majority leader so eloquently noted the other day, we have spent hours and hours and hours, beyond historical norms, to complete our work on the appropriations bills. Last June, Democratic and Republican leaders came to an agreement that, in exchange for allowing full and fair debate with up or down votes on dozens of amendments, Republicans would allow the appropriation bills to proceed through the House. We have been able to come to unanimous consents to consider those bills, and they have largely passed with large bipartisan majorities. Now, I know that some of my friends on the other side of the aisle were upset with the process used to consider the SCHIP bill, and after our discussion in the Rules Committee last night, I understand their concerns. But they have decided to use that frustration as an excuse to prevent completion of our important appropriations work, and we do not believe that that is in the best interest of the Nation. Clearly, my friends on the other side have decided to abandon the June agreement, and that is their right. But it is our responsibility, in the majority, to complete these bills in a timely way. Unfortunately, it has become clear that a small number of Members on the other side was willing to use a filibuster-by-amendment strategy to shut down the House and prevent us from completing our work. Mr. Speaker, if Members wish to filibuster bills, they should run for the United States Senate. There is a difference between serious legislating and obstructionism. And I believe that offering amendments to cut bills by $50,000 and then $100,000 and then $101,000 and so on, and debating these bills forever and ever and ever and using procedural mechanisms to unjustifiably delay the consideration of bills, not to move serious legislation forward, but to delay the consideration of bills, I think that's obstructionism. And I think what we saw on the floor the other day was obstructionism. This rule makes in order 12 amendments, all of them Republican amendments on a variety of issues. Many of what I would call the ``usual suspect'' amendments were made in order, amendments by members of the Republican Study Committee to cut certain programs in the bill, an amendment to cut funding across the board, an amendment from my good friend, Mr. Flake, to eliminate earmarks. Mr. Speaker, I also regret that tensions have risen over the last several days. Perhaps it's inevitable before a break, and perhaps it's the heat and humidity, but I hope that all of us can come back after Labor Day refreshed and rededicated to doing the people's business in a civil way. Mr. Speaker, Hillary Clinton says ``it takes a village.'' Maybe for us it takes a recess. In this business, your word is everything; without it, there is no trust. And without any trust, this would be a very, very unhappy place to work. I thought we had a very good discussion in the Rules Committee last night. I believe we understand each other and where we're coming from a bit better. I know my friend, Mr. Dreier, and other members of the Rules Committee are eager to look for ways that we can make this process better. They have my word and I think the word of all of us on the Democratic side that we want to work with them to make that happen. In the meantime, however, we have a responsibility to do the people's business. And the rule before us allows us to do that in an orderly way that allows for vigorous debate and votes on amendments. So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. If the gentleman will yield, the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, who is on the floor here today, Mr. Obey, did. If you would like to ask him questions, you may.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ 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 regret the fact that the gentleman feels he needs to personalize this debate; and I would only ask the gentleman, how many ranking Republicans are right now under investigation who continue to serve in their capacity? I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3159 is a very straightforward bill with a very straightforward message. Like its name implies, this is a bill to ensure that our military is ready to carry out combat and combat- related missions by having a stable, predictable deployment policy. H.R. 3159 would require that our uniformed men and women, our military units, receive minimum periods of rest and recuperation between their deployments to Iraq. We have been hearing for over a year now about the strain on our active duty, Reserve and Guard units caused by multiple redeployments to Iraq and the ever-shrinking time at home provided by many units between deployments. So why did this legislation work its way through the Armed Services Committee at this time? There is a very simple reason, Mr. Speaker, why this bill is so timely now. On May 9, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced a change to deployment policy. Secretary Gates changed the current policy for active Army units from 1 year at home for 1 year deployed to a policy of 15 months deployed for every 12 months at home. Mr. Speaker, this is a change that is moving in the wrong direction. Rather than taking care of our troops, this change increases the stress and strain on our servicemen and servicewomen. This change has raised serious concerns about the sustainability and readiness of our active duty Army and whether such a reduced period at their home bases allows sufficient time for units and individuals to adequately train, equip, recover and reconstitute for the next deployment. If anyone in this Chamber is not concerned about the physical, mental, emotional and logistical strain placed on every combat unit and individual subject to multiple deployments to Iraq, then I hope they will stand up during this debate. We hear a lot of talk in this House about ``supporting the troops.'' Only a handful of Members in this body have had to lay it on the line in Iraq. Only a handful had to bid their families farewell and face combat in Iraq. For the rest of us, there is no sacrifice, no strain, no stress placed on us personally or on our families and loved ones. Well, here is our chance to show that we genuinely do understand what we have been asking our troops to do in Iraq, that we genuinely do understand the toll that it takes on each of them individually, as a unit and as a service, that we genuinely do understand the sacrifice that we ask of their families, and that we will require the Pentagon to provide our uniformed men and women a minimum amount of time to recover from combat to reconnect with their families and to prepare again for a return to battle. There are some in this Chamber who will yelp and yowl that this is just a ploy to end the war. Mr. Speaker, as someone who is clearly on record as wanting to end this war as quickly as humanly possible, I can testify that this is not the case. I opposed this war with every fiber of my being, but I strongly believe that for as long as this war endures, the bare minimum this Congress must do is take care of the troops who carry out this mission and make sure this war does not shatter our military from the strain of multiple deployments. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I agree with the distinguished minority leader that this is disappointing. As a member of the Rules Committee, I regret this rule and I don't like it. But what I like less are efforts to obstruct and stop the people's business. There is a difference between legislating and obstructionism. And I would say to the distinguished minority leader that fairness is a two-way street and what happened in this House on Tuesday, in my opinion, was pathetic. What is at stake here is a bill to feed hungry people, is a bill to help rural America, is a bill to provide for better food security, and a bill to help our economy. This is serious business, and this is what we were sent here to deal with. What happened on Tuesday, as I said, was pathetic. It stalled consideration of the Agriculture appropriations bill. It dismantled an agreement that worked well during consideration of the last 10 appropriations bills. And let me say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, where I come from in Massachusetts, a deal is a deal. Your word is everything. So, please, when you break your word, don't act shocked when there is a reaction from this side of the aisle. I will close by saying to my colleagues that it is important for us to move beyond this. It is important for us to work together. It is important for us to be more civil. I will concede to my friends on the other side of the aisle that my side of the aisle can do better, but you need to concede that your side can do better as well. And that is the way we restore the trust that, unfortunately, has been lost. I urge a ``yes'' on the previous question and on the rule. Mr. LEWIS of California, this is a sad day in the history of the Appropriations Committee and the House of Representatives. Meaningful, legitimate debate is being stifled and the voice of the Republican minority is being silenced. Sadly, this is the day that will be remembered as the day that the Democrat majority imposed martial law on the People's House. My colleagues know that I have the highest level of respect for the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Obey. Together, we worked as partners during the 109th Congress, passing Appropriations bills through our committee and through the House. Our committee, and indeed, the House, is at its very best when we work together across patty lines and rise above purely partisan politics. During the last Congress, I was privileged to serve as chairman of the House Appropriations Committee and Mr. Obey was our distinguished ranking member. During my tenure as chairman, the House considered 22 regular order appropriations bills. In each and every instance, I worked closely with my leadership and Chairman Dreier in seeking a rule that allowed for a maximum level of open debate, including amendments, on the House floor. Every one--every one--of those 22 annual spending bills was considered under an open rule. We allowed and even encouraged dissenting voices to be heard on these bills. The result was often vigorous and lively debate on the House floor. But that's precisely why our constituents send us to Washington. I was disappointed that Mr. Obey's first bills as chairman--the fiscal year 2007 continuing resolution and the emergency supplemental-- were both considered under a closed rule. Mr. Obey, under direction from his leadership, is now heading down the same road yet gain. The Democrat leadership, with absolutely no consultation with the minority, has adopted a closed rule for the consideration of the Agriculture Appropriations bill. As a result, scores of legitimate policy amendments offered by the minority have not been made in order. This is a dangerous and perilous precedent that sets precisely the wrong tone as we attempt to complete work on our annual spending bills. A closed rule leaves the minority little choice but to walk away from the tradition of comity that has marked our longstaning work on this committee. I find it interesting that we had only spent 3-4 hours debating this bill before the Democrat majority decided to pull the plug. I find it troubling that the decision was made by the Democrat leadership to impose a martial law, closed rule on the Ag bill in their rush to begin their month-long August vacation. This legislation is simply too important to have it rushed through the House with no debate and no opportunity for the body to consider amendments. An open rule is the only proper way for the House to consider this legislation. I certainly hope that this lock-down martial law rule on the Ag Appropriations bill isn't a preview of what the House can expect tomorrow as we consider the DoD Appropriations bill, legislation that comprises roughly one-half of all discretionary spending. The Democratic leadership, which promised the most open and transparent legislative process in history, is now showing its true colors. It has failed to fulfill its commitment to the Members of this body by not affording all Members an opportunity to openly amend and debate this bill. I urge my I colleagues to oppose this rule and adopt a rule that will allow free and open debate on this and other pending spending bills.

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I am sorry my friends on the other side of the aisle don't seem to put a high priority on agriculture and on the need to support our farmers and the need to feed hungry people in this country. You want to talk about a national security challenge, there are 35 million Americans in this country today who are either hungry or food insecure, in large part because of the Republican agenda to erode the safety net over the last several years. There is money in this bill for food safety and inspection, money to support the Food and Drug Administration so people don't get contaminated drugs. No, I am not going to yield to the gentleman. These are vital national security interests. And it is about time we get our priorities straight. We need to pass this bill, just as we needed to pass the farm bill to help fix the damage that they have done over the last several years. So enough is enough. This is an important bill. If you don't think it is an important bill, then vote down the rule. Defeat the rule so we don't debate issues like agriculture and food security and support for the hungry in this country. I would strongly urge my colleagues to vote for this rule. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, let me just say I am disappointed with my colleague from Washington and others who have come to the floor to try to bring back an oldy but goody that the Republicans like to invoke, and that is the politics of fear. Maybe Karl Rove went down to the Republican National Committee and briefed them and said everything else is failing for the Republicans, they are at an all-time low in the public opinion poll, so trot out the politics of fear again and scare the American people. Well, the fact of the matter is, as the gentleman knows, the administration, the Bush administration, and the Speaker's Office are in negotiations on trying to reach an accommodation on this FISA issue. If you don't believe me, it was in Congressional Quarterly. What Congressional Quarterly also stated was that the Republicans in the House, however, were trying to drag their feet. If you don't want to join in the deliberation, that's your problem. We will work something out, hopefully with the administration, and bring this issue to closure. But let me say one other thing why we need to be very, very careful on this. We need to be very, very careful about giving even more broad unchecked authority to Alberto Gonzales and his crew. Quite frankly, I wouldn't trust the Attorney General to tell me the correct time, never mind stand up and defend the civil liberties of anybody. That's why Democrats are continuing to work with the White House to get a tough, smart FISA bill to put together, and I expect that we will do that. What the gentleman and others are going to decide to do right now is plain politics. Back to the main subject here, which is the farm bill. This is a good bill for farmers. This is a good bill for people who are vulnerable, who have been shortchanged by the administration in the Republican Congresses when it comes to food security. This is a good bill for America. I congratulate the distinguished gentlelady from Connecticut for working together so hard to put together a bill we can be proud of. Vote ``yes'' on the previous question, and vote ``yes'' on the rule. The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is as follows: Amendment to H. Res. 581 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington At the end of the resolution, add the following: Sec. 3. That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the House shall, without intervention of any point of order, consider the bill (H.R. 3138) to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to update the definition of electronic surveillance. All points of order against the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; and (2) one motion to recommit.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a dear friend and a devoted public servant. Michael J. Donoghue will officially retire tomorrow as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Worcester Regional Retirement System, marking the end of a distinguished career in which he has ably served the citizens of my hometown of Worcester, Massachusetts and all of Worcester County. For more than thirty years, Mike Donoghue managed a $400 million pension system comprised of fifty Worcester County communities and another forty-five school districts. During that time, he vigorously protected the retirement security of thousands of public employees with an uncommon care and concern for their future hopes and dreams. Throughout his tenure, Mike made it his business to personally know the individual members of the Worcester Regional Retirement System and steadfastly refused to allow the pensioners to become anonymous participants in a cold actuarial exercise. Mike's unfailing loyalty to his membership will forever be remembered as the hallmark of his remarkable public service. It also bears noting that Mike Donoghue's contributions to the greater Worcester community extend far beyond the management of the Worcester Regional Retirement System. Mike served two terms on the Worcester City Council before being elected Worcester County Treasurer in 1978. Mike's unique combination of insight, skill and common sense made him a coveted board member for virtually every major civic and charitable organization in the City of Worcester. He has served on the board of directors for the Worcester Regional Chamber of Commerce and the Massachusetts Biomedical Initiatives (MBI). Mike's expertise and leadership helped establish Worcester as a center for medical research more than twenty-five years ago and the Gateway Park Project which is right now transforming a former brownfield site in Worcester into another major biomedical research park is also due in no small part to his efforts. Mike's compassion for the less fortunate has caused him to also lend his talents to the Board of Directors for the VNA Network Foundation, the Worcester Area Mental Health Association, the Worcester Area United Way and the Special Olympics of Massachusetts. After the devastating Worcester Cold Storage Warehouse Fire in 1999, Mike was a natural choice to help the City commemorate the sacrifice of the six fallen firefighters and was appointed to chair the Worcester Firefighters Memorial Committee. He remains committed to that effort today as an active board member. A man of deep religious faith, Mike has also given to his community through his church as a former member of the Board of Incorporators of Catholic Charities for the Worcester Diocese and Saint Vincent's Hospital. A proud graduate of Nichols College, Mike has had the special privilege of serving as a trustee for his alma mater. Madam Speaker, all of us in public service share a special bond forged by the great demands, challenges and rewards of our profession. In the finest traditions of our noble calling, Michael J. Donoghue has proven himself worthy of the respect and admiration he enjoys from his colleagues in government. I will always be grateful for his sage advice and loyal friendship as will my colleague, U.S. Senator Edward M. Kennedy, who has long relied on Mike as a trusted advisor and confidant. I know Senator Kennedy joins me in expressing the heartfelt appreciation of the United States Congress to Michael J. Donoghue on this occasion and we wish him, his wife Maureen, and their beautiful children and grandchildren continued best wishes for a happy and healthy retirement. You, my friend, have earned it.