Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my colleague from California (Mr. Dreier) that I appreciate his words of cooperation and bipartisanship, and I do hope, and it is my belief, that you will see a change in terms of more outreach across the aisle and more respect, quite frankly, for the opinions of every single Member of this House. I agree this is a historic day. This is not only a historic day because we have elected the first woman Speaker of the House in the history of the United States of America, but this is also a historic day for what we are about to vote on. We are about to change the way we do business here in Washington. We are responding to what the American people made very clear on election day, that they are tired of the ethical lapses of their leaders in government; that they want an end to the culture of corruption; that they want a government that has high ethical standards; that they want Members of Congress to adhere to those high ethical standards and, if they do not, that they will be held accountable. So what we are doing today in this ethics package, I think, is also an important moment in our history. What we are doing is we are doing what is right. We are holding the Members of this House to the very highest ethical standards. And I want to say to my colleague from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) that I agree with him on the pension issue. So do, I think, everybody on our side of the aisle. And we are going to address that and we are going to hopefully get a unanimous vote on that issue, because he is right on that issue. But, again, we are not dealing with that. That requires a statutory change, and today we are dealing with the House rules. Mr. Speaker, what we are doing here today, I will remind my colleagues again, is very important. We are ending gifts by lobbyists to Members of Congress, we are banning the use of corporate jets for Members of Congress for a minimal price so that they can take a corporate jet and fly anywhere in this country. No one else can do that, yet that has been a practice by too many Members in this Congress. That will be banned. We will end the lobbyist-sponsored golf junkets. They will be relics of the past. This is a new day. This is a day where ethics and where integrity are going to hold a very, very high place. We are going to end the culture of corruption with this vote, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``yes'' on that.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just say, respond to my good friend from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), who I am going to miss on the Rules Committee, if he thinks that the Republican reform package was meaningful reform, I will lend you my bifocals so you can read it more carefully. What ended up happening, what you ended up enacting essentially, after 12 years in the majority, was banning lobbyists from the locker room. That is all that became law. You controlled the House of Representatives. You controlled the Congress. And you controlled the United States Senate, and that is basically all that you did. So I would just say to the gentleman, if he wants to vote ``no'' on this, he can go right ahead and vote ``no'' on it. But that is defending the status quo. I think the American people made it very clear during the last election that they are sick of the culture of corruption; that they want a ban on lobbyists' gifts; that they want an end to the K Street Project. They want a ban on Members using corporate jets to fly around the country. And so if you want to vote for the status quo, vote ``no'' on this. If you want to vote for real meaningful change, vote ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Hodes).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just respond to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) by saying I know I am from Massachusetts, and you may think I have a funny accent and you have trouble understanding me. But let me repeat what I said before. In order to make the changes on the pension issue that he is asking for, which we all support, it requires a statutory change. And I think the staff over there will help clarify that. We are all for that. In H.R. 4011, which Ms. Pelosi supported that you mentioned was a statute. We are going to do that. Let me just say one other thing to the gentleman. You keep on referring to your ethics reform package as if it was some kind of this monumental change and reform. You didn't ban the K Street Project, which has really resulted in so much outrage across the country. You had a temporary suspension on the issue of travel, and you had no ban on lobbyists' gifts. This is real reform. We are going to end the culture of corruption. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of debate only 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Gillibrand).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just educate the gentleman that the change that he is asking for requires a statutory change. Today we are dealing with the House rules. I will assure the gentleman and his constituents in Nebraska and people all over the United States who agree with him that we will have the opportunity to do that. We will go through House Administration and you will have the opportunity to do that. We will hopefully have a unanimous vote on that. I am also happy to hear the gentleman and others on the other side of the aisle all of a sudden speak in favor of ethics reform and real change and ending the culture of corruption in this House. It is amazing what an election will do. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton), a new member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. I am in the middle of my statement. I would also say to the gentleman that his party has been in control for 12 years, and there has been ample opportunity to change the status quo. The gentleman's party not only embraced the status quo, but we saw a proliferation of the culture of corruption, and that is what this is a response to. In answer to the gentleman's question as to this March 1 deadline, that is to give the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct ample time to put the rules and regulations and the disclosure requirements into place so that this can be an effective change. So this is real historic change. We are going to end the culture of corruption in this Congress today. I am glad that the gentleman has said that he is going to support it. I hope that this is a bipartisan vote. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes, for the purpose of debate, to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Space).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me just say to my good friend from California, whom I have a lot of respect for, there is a big difference between what his leadership proposed in terms of higher ethical standards and what is being proposed here today. I have got to say to the gentleman that we include a little bit more than just banning lobbyists from the locker rooms. They are banned from the locker rooms in this bill, but there is a heck of a lot more.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Speaker, it may seem like the November elections took place ages ago, but the sentiments that created new majorities in the House and Senate are still strong. The American people spoke loud and clear on November 7. Together, Republicans and Democrats and independents from across this great Nation voted for change. They voted to end the cycle of corruption, pay to play, and junkets. Today, Mr. Speaker, the new Democratic majority is fulfilling the pledge we made to the voters. We are going to clean up Washington, D.C. We are going to give the people their House back. Two years ago my friends on the other side of the aisle brought forward a rules package that, in my opinion, did not go nearly far enough in upholding the highest ethical standards. Today we offer a package that is based on real change. Members of Congress are elected to serve the American people, not their own individual private interests. And I am proud to say that today, this House of Representatives will enact a reform package that ends the culture of corruption once and for all. The days of the K Street project are over. No longer will Members of this House be able to dictate to any private entity the hiring or firing of anyone based on their political affiliation. This rules package prohibits Members of Congress from traveling on corporate jets. My constituents in Massachusetts don't have the opportunity to get cheap travel on corporate jets and neither should Members of Congress. Mr. Speaker, this rules package also changes the way Members of Congress and staff can travel for official business. I strongly believe that overseas trips and other travel can be important tools to helping Members of Congress understand complex domestic and international issues. But the days of lobbyist-sponsored golf junkets will be relics of the past. The actions this package takes are simple and straightforward: no more junkets, no more gifts from lobbyists, no more travel on corporate jets. This rules package is comprehensive, and it is historic. We are going to change the way this place is run, and we are going to change the way people look at the Congress. The American people don't want to pick up their morning newspapers and read about golf junkets to St. Andrews. They don't want to hear stories about how their Congressman or Congresswoman was wined and dined with $100 steak dinners. Mr. Speaker, this is not complicated. These are commonsense items that should have been dealt with years ago. The time has come to do what is right, to hold Members of this House to the highest ethical standards. With the election of Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House, the first woman Speaker in the history of the United States, Democrats are ushering in a new era and putting an end to the culture of corruption. We are changing the tone in Washington, and we are changing the way we conduct business. Now, I know full well that the ethical problems of the past were not limited to one side of the aisle, and the solutions to those problems can and should come from both Democrats and Republicans. I know that many of my Republican friends agree that change is needed, and they wish that their leadership in the past would have moved forward on some of these changes. I look forward to working closely with them in the weeks and the months ahead. Mr. Speaker, the American people demand, and they deserve, a higher standard of conduct from their elected officials. Today, we are raising the bar for how Members of the 110th Congress will carry out their duties and do their jobs. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I will commit to the gentleman from Arizona that we are going to enter into that exchange, and I look forward to having that statute on the floor where he can speak in favor of it and we can speak in favor of it too. Let me also, Mr. Speaker, correct the record. The distinguished former chairman of the Rules Committee said none of this ethics reform takes place for 4 months. That is true on the travel, and I clarified that earlier as to why that is the case, so we had time to implement the rules and regulations of disclosure. But everything else, I will assure him, takes place immediately. So once this ethics package passes, I would urge my colleague from California not to go out to dinner with any of his lobbyist friends because he might be breaking the law. Mr. Speaker, I yield for purposes of debate only 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mahoney).

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Utah (Mr. Bishop) for yielding me the time, and yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the U.S.-India Nuclear Cooperation Promotion Act. I, too, want to commend Chairman Hyde and Ranking Member Lantos and the members of International Relations Committee for their work on this. This conference report that comes before us has been signed by all of the conferees, the process has been good, and I support the rule. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, just so I can correct the record, I should tell the gentleman from Georgia that the Cape Wind project has not been blocked. And, in fact, those of us in Massachusetts, in New England, understand the need for increased energy and right now are working with our Governor to try to find an adequate location for a new LNG facility. So it is incorrect to say that that Cape Wind project has been blocked. Our problem here is that the energy policy of this Republican leadership is like going to the dentist. It's drill, drill, drill, drill. Those of us who believe that we should be pursuing alternative, renewable, safe and clean sources of energy are frustrated that those on the other side are all talk and no action. We have an opportunity to end our dependence on foreign oil. We have an opportunity to create a whole new energy economy based on renewable energy sources, and we have not been given the help or the support from this Congress or from this President. So that is what we are frustrated about. And also the constant giveaways to the oil companies who have gourged and who have ripped off the American taxpayer. It is obscene that in the energy bill over $7 billion in tax subsidies and tax breaks have been given to the oil industry. We need to change our direction With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me close for our side here, once again reiterating that this is a lousy process, and that it is really unfortunate that the Republican leadership has decided to meld together provisions, some of which have broad bipartisan support, with a provision on this offshore drilling that is extremely controversial, that some of us believe will do great damage to the environment, and as my colleague from Florida has pointed out, poses potential risks for the State of Florida. This is not the way this should be done. We should have a more open process. We should have regular order. We should have hearings. We should have committee markups. We should do this the right way. Unfortunately, a pattern has developed under this Republican leadership where process and rules haven't mattered, and that is, indeed, unfortunate. We need to do better, not just for the sake of this institution, but we need to do better for the American people. I hope that in the next Congress that we will set a new standard, one that we can all be proud of, Democrats and Republicans together. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, let me also take this opportunity to say that notwithstanding the fact that I think this is a lousy process, I have great respect for the gentleman from Georgia, who is departing from the Rules Committee. It has been a privilege to serve with him. I have enjoyed debating with him and listening to his perspective. There is not very much we agree on, but having said that, we have, I think, had a good relationship, a collegial relationship, and a respectful relationship. The committee will not be the same without his voice and without his insight, so I want to thank him. Mr. Speaker, I again urge people to vote ``no'' on the rule and on the final bill because of the way it has been messed up. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I am disappointed but not surprised that this is how we are ending the 109th Congress. Like I said yesterday, old habits die hard. Once again, we are here on the floor debating an omnibus bill, a smorgasbord, if you will, a bill which cobbles together several bills and other provisions that have absolutely nothing to do with each other. This process is unfortunate. The Republican leadership is forcing a bill through this body today that includes tax extenders, Medicare payments, offshore drilling and an expansion of the D.C. school voucher program. It is a 279-page bill that is date-stamped yesterday at 1:39 p.m. I wonder how many people in this House, Madam Speaker, have actually had the time to read and research what is in this bill and how it will impact current policy. I would say to my colleagues, don't be surprised if in a week or two you pick up your local newspaper and that there is a story about other goodies that are hidden in this bill that we are about to consider today. Sadly, that is what we have come to expect from this Republican leadership. There are at least four separate bills included in these 279 pages, each of which does a variety of things. First, the tax extenders bill. The tax extenders provisions include things like the R&D tax credit and Work Opportunity Act, just to name a couple. These tax extensions happen every year, are generally bipartisan and noncontroversial, and could and should be passed on their own and considered in the Senate under regular order. Second, this bill includes Medicare payments to ensure our seniors are able to receive the health care that they have come to expect. The Republican leadership and the Republicans on the Ways and Means committee have known for an entire year about the need to address these Medicare payment issues. They just didn't care enough to act. They should have written a bill and brought it through the committee through regular order, but they just didn't seem to care enough to get it done. Third, and most problematic, is the offshore drilling bill that has been inserted in this tax bill. This bill passed the House earlier this year but failed to get out of conference, so instead of the Republican House and the Republican Senate doing their job and sending us a conference report, we get instead a bill stuck in with tax extensions and Medicare payments that allows for offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. This bill is as far from a solid, comprehensive energy strategy as we can get, Madam Speaker, and yet another bow to the interests of Big Oil. And that comes as no surprise. That is what the majority has been doing for the past 6 years. So let's be clear. Opening up these areas of the Gulf of Mexico will have no significant impact on oil and gas prices but it will benefit the oil and gas industry. This is the same industry that used a royalty relief loophole to swindle the American taxpayers out of at least $7 billion in royalties. And it is the same industry that received $7.5 billion in tax breaks in the so-called energy bill, all courtesy of the Republican leadership in this Congress. Fourth and finally, Madam Speaker, we know there is an expansion of the school voucher program for Washington, D.C. Rather than advocate for more money to improve public schools, the Republican leadership has decided to divert funds to unaccountable religious and private schools. This is a highly controversial program that should not be stuffed in a catch-all bill as the Congress is trying to adjourn. Madam Speaker, I support extending the noncontroversial tax credits and at long last fixing these Medicare reimbursement problems, but I cannot support efforts to open up offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico or expand the D.C. school voucher program. And I certainly cannot support the way the Republican leadership is forcing the House to consider this omnibus bill, under a closed rule, with no time for adequate review or amendment. Madam Speaker, this is not the way the House of Representatives should be run. This is not the way we should legislate. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and vote ``no'' on the bill. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes and I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from North Carolina has made the case more eloquently than I could possibly make the case about the need to have a more open process and the need to follow regular order. If she objects to earmarks and certain provisions in the bill, she should have the opportunity to be able to introduce amendments to strike some of these provisions. If we followed a regular process that had some integrity in this Congress, then I think all of us here could be confident that the final product on some of these pieces of legislation are things that we can be proud of. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee)

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, the 109th Congress is ending the same way it started, in a closed and secretive fashion. I guess old habits die hard. Once again we are here on the floor debating a martial law rule that also makes today a suspension day. Here we are, once again, unsure of what we will be considering today, tonight, or tomorrow. Now, it is hard to be shocked by the majority's tactics, because this is business as usual. Time after time the Republican majority has forced this House to consider bills under a closed process. In the 109th Congress, out of the 190 total rules reported, only one non- appropriations bill was considered under an open rule. One out of 190. That is a dismal record, even for this Republican majority. Mr. Speaker, the trouble with this martial law rule is that it allows the House to consider any bill before we even have a chance to read it. What is going to be included in the final bill? We already know about the tax extenders, Medicare fixes and offshore drilling that will be cobbled together in one bill. What else will be thrown in here? What other surprises does this Republican majority have in store? Just a few years ago, Mr. Speaker, liability protection for pharmaceutical companies was included in a conference report after the conference was closed. Is that going to happen again in their rush to get out of town? Legislation is not supposed to work like this. None of the issues we are considering here are new. The Ways and Means Committee knew about the Medicare problem all year, but didn't care to act. The offshore drilling measure should be considered under regular order, but the Republican majority appears unwilling to schedule it that way. And the tax extender provisions, things like the R&D tax credits and work opportunity tax credit, to name a few, should be passed on their own and considered in the Senate in regular order. Mr. Speaker, there is a better way to run this body. The truth, Mr. Speaker, is that the American people expect and deserve better. That is why the 110th Congress must be different. I believe we need to rediscover openness and fairness in this House. We must insist on full and fair debate on the issues that come before this body. People should have time to read the bills before they are considered. The Rules Committee will end its regular practice of meeting in the dead of night simply to report out a closed rule. There will be a new direction for the House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, I don't expect that the Democratic majority will be perfect, but I do expect the incoming majority to understand that every Member of this House, Republican and Democrat, deserves to be treated with respect and fairness. Every Member, whether it is the Speaker of the House or a freshman in the minority party, represents the same number of people. Everyone deserves to be heard, everyone deserves to know what we are voting on, and nobody deserves a process as undemocratic and insulting as the one before us. Mr. Speaker, this is a sad, but fitting, way to end the 109th Congress. As I said, old habits die hard. I hope this is truly the end of an era where rules, respect for this institution, and democracy didn't matter, and the beginning of a new direction for the House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, just for the record, I have no problem with the fact that people can offer suspension bills today. My problem is with the martial law rule, the martial law rule which waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII to provide for same day consideration of any rule reported on the legislative day of December 7, 2006. This rule, which circumvents the regular 1-day layover requirement for consideration of a rule, will allow the House to consider any rule on any piece of legislation on the House floor on the same day the rule is reported without requiring the standard two-thirds vote for same-day consideration of a rule. I guess the problem I have is, again, not with suspension bills, which are mostly noncontroversial bills, but my problem is with significant pieces of legislation, some legislation which may not have even been heard by committees of jurisdiction, which may not have been reported out of committees of jurisdiction, bills that will come before us that the House has never even considered, things that we will not have an opportunity to be able to read before we vote on them. I keep on hearing that we need to consider our business in a timely fashion. Well, what is the rush? We could be here next week. Since they didn't get their work done before the election, we can stay here another week and do this right. I think people expect Members of Congress when they vote on legislation to know what they are voting on. They don't want any more backroom deals. They don't want to read in the newspapers a week or two weeks from now that the House passed some omnibus bill that had all these objectionable provisions included in it. So my point is that this is a bad process and we should do better, and I hope in the future we will do better. But here we are today, and I think those who care about responsible legislating should oppose this rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me respond to the gentlewoman by saying that I hope that we do not have to use martial law rules, and I hope that we will do our business. Actually, we are going to work 5 days a week, so we will be able to get our business done in a timely fashion, in a professional fashion. But what I object to about the way this House has been run, it is not just the martial law rules, it has been the closed rules in general. It has been the closing off debate and denying not just Democrats but Republicans the chance to offer amendments on the House floor, the chance to be heard. I am not saying every rule will be an open rule. I am not saying the Democrats are going to be perfect, but what I do believe is that we will be significantly better. We have to be. I think one of the reasons why people have such a low regard for this Congress is they have watched how this Congress has been run, and they have seen how closed it has been and they have seen the results of that closed process: items that appear in legislation that never had committee hearings, that had never been debated on the House floor mysteriously appearing in conference reports. I think people want a more open process, a more fair process. I think if the new majority, and I hope, and I know this is a tall order, but I hope if Speaker-elect Pelosi can create a more open and fair process in this House, that it will go a long way to increasing collegiality and respect for one another. I think a lot of the bitterness and rancor that exists in this Congress is when people feel locked out, when they feel disrespected. So I hope we do better and I am going to fight in the Rules Committee to do better. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me also say to my colleague from West Virginia that I have enjoyed serving on the Rules Committee with her as well, and I have enjoyed our debates. I admire her intellect and I appreciate her efforts to create a more civil Congress, and I regret that she will no longer be on the Rules Committee because I thought she added a lot to the debate and to the civility in that committee. Again, Mr. Speaker, I would simply say to my colleagues that this process is not the process in which we should conduct our business. This martial law rule is not needed. We can stay here next week and get our business done in regular order. There is no need to rush out of here, and my fear is that we have created a process in which Members are not going to have an opportunity to even know what they are voting on. So, with that, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this martial law rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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