Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think we need to be careful with words. Nobody is advocating amnesty. I don't think President Bush is advocating an amnesty. I don't think Senators Hagel or Martinez or McCain are advocating amnesty. What people want is action. What people are frustrated with is the fact that this Republican Congress has done nothing. We passed the comprehensive immigration reform bill in the House. They passed one in the Senate. We want to go to conference to work out the differences and come up with an approach that will work. Instead, what have you done? You have gone around the country holding hearings at taxpayers' expense, and the reviews have been dismal. The headlines from the leading newspapers from across the country are ``All Talk No Action on Immigration,'' and ``Immigration Hearings Misfire.'' ``Field Hearings a Waste of Time and Money.'' ``Immigration Hearing Staged to Run Out the Clock'' so we don't do anything meaningful. That is not what we want; we want real action. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would just respond to the gentleman that I think he has conceded that this is a sham by virtue of the fact that it is being brought up under a closed rule, a closed process. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I hope that all Members will join me and vote ``no'' on the previous question so I can amend the rule and allow the House to consider an amendment by Representative Jackson-Lee that would really take on the issue of border security rather than just pay it lip service. The proposal would amend H.R. 6095 to equip the Department of Homeland Security with the resources the 9/11 Commission says we need to secure our borders, to shut down the alien smuggling business, and to catch and hold illegal immigrants entering our country. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to print the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority in this House continues to approach border security and immigration control in its usual ineffective and piecemeal approach, putting election-year politics ahead of real and responsible solutions. Republicans are big talkers when it comes to border security and immigration reform, but they have never been willing to put their money where their mouth is. The bills we will consider on the House floor today are more of the same. This debate and these bills are supposed to remind voters that Republicans are somehow tough on immigration, but instead they just remind all of us that Republicans have not been able to make any progress on the urgent issue of border security. So I urge all Members of this body to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can bring up this amendment to actually do something about the problems on our Nation's borders instead of just talking about it. The 9/11 Commission has given this Congress Ds and Fs when it comes to homeland security, and we have a particularly low grade when it comes to protecting our borders. Let us not only do the right thing. Let us do something that is real. People are cynical. They are tired of politics as usual in this House. They are tired of these last-minute bills that come up before elections to somehow imply that we are doing something when we are not. We have a serious problem on our borders. We need serious action. This is not serious action. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If that vote does not prevail, vote ``no'' on a closed rule. If these issues are important, we should be able to amend these bills. We need a little democracy in this House. Let's get this right. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, after all the scandals, after all the corruption, after all the unethical abuse of earmarks, after all the public outrage, this is it? This is the best that you can do? With all due respect to my colleague from Arizona, who just spoke, I don't want your compliments. I don't want to take credit for this. This measure before us is not earmark reform or any other kind of real reform. It is not accountability, and it is not transparency. It is, at best, a press release. There are so many loopholes in this measure that you could drive a Mack truck right through it. Unreported bills, manager's amendments and other amendments are not subject to this so-called reform. That is where a great deal of the earmarking abuse occurs, but it is all exempt. We need to clean this place up. We need to change the culture of corruption in this House of Representatives. We need a comprehensive lobbying bill that has teeth in it, that means something. Let me say to my colleagues, this entire institution has suffered as a result of the corrupt practices of the Tom DeLays and the Duke Cunninghams. It has suffered under the 12 years of mismanagement by the Republican majority here. People have had it. People have lost faith in this institution. This chairman of the Rules Committee talks about how the Republican majority is interested in reining in spending. Federal spending has gone up 40 percent since George Bush took office. In terms of earmarks, they are coming late to this game. In 1995, when they took power, there were about 1,400 earmarks. There are over 14,000 earmarks as of 2005. You know, the only way to regain the confidence of the American people is by combating the corruption, by cleaning up this institution, by implementing real, honest-to-goodness reform. This is not it. If you are going to do something, do it right.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this is the resolution we should be considering today, and let me tell you why. It was not written for political gain or for 30-second sound bites. It was written with the sole intent and purpose of remembering the tragic events of September 11, 2001, and to honor and mourn the victims of that horrific day. I think we owe it to the people of this great Nation to put politics aside for this one day and show that we are Americans first and that some things are sacred and should never be used for political purposes. So I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can consider the Senate version of the September 11 commemorative. Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I will close for our side. Mr. Speaker, the issue about whether or not the Nation is safer than it was on September 11, 2001, is a legitimate topic for debate, but not on this resolution. The issue of the PATRIOT Act, there are differences on that. I have a lot of reservations about the PATRIOT Act, as do many Republicans. That is a legitimate debate we should continue to have. The issue about how best to protect our borders is a serious and important and legitimate issue. President Bush and Senator McCain have one opinion on how we should do it, which I think makes a heck of a lot more sense than the view of the Republican majority in this House, but that is certainly a legitimate debate. But it doesn't belong in a resolution commemorating the lives and the sacrifices of those individuals on September 11, 2001. And I guess I wish that just once, just once the leadership on the other side of the aisle could bring to this floor a piece of legislation, especially on an issue like this, that is not stained with politics. Why does everything have to have a political slant to it? I think people are sick of it, I really do. I think on issues like this people want us to come together, as we have done in the past, as the other body has done, and speak with one voice. Let us not make this into something it shouldn't be. So, Mr. Speaker, I am asking Members of this House to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can consider a much better resolution, one that respectfully commemorates this most somber occasion. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule so that instead of voting on the divisive partisan resolution made in order under this rule, we will consider the text of the truly bipartisan resolution that was adopted in the Senate on the fifth anniversary of September 11. Not only was this measure passed by unanimous consent in the Senate on September 11, the actual day of the anniversary, it was cosponsored by every single Member of the United States Senate: every single Democrat, every single Republican. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from both my friend from Texas and my chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier, the gentleman from California, and I would just say that that was a really good campaign speech as he went through a litany of issues. But this is not a day for campaign speeches.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), my friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today we remember that terrible day of September 11, 2001. We continue to mourn for those who are lost. Our hearts continue to ache for the loved ones left behind. We honor those first responders who saved so many lives. We continue to stand firm as we pursue justice against those who perpetrated those attacks. And we remain committed to finding and eliminating terrorists around the world. Mr. Speaker, almost every year since 2001, Congress has passed resolutions commemorating the September 11 attacks. In past years those resolutions have been thoughtful, appropriate, and solidly bipartisan, as they should be. Sadly and unfortunately, that is not the case this year. Instead, the Republican leadership of this House has chosen to include controversial language in the resolution, including language celebrating the passage of legislation that many of us, both Democrats and Republicans, find to be deeply problematic. For example, the resolution before us celebrates the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act, which I and many others, Republicans and Democrats, believe went too far in sacrificing American's constitutional civil liberties. Rand Corporation terrorism expert Brian Michael Jenkins recently made this point very well. He argues that strengthening America must involve preserving American values. And I quote: ``We cannot claim to be a Nation of laws, a champion of democracy, when we too easily accept a disturbing pattern of ignoring inconvenient rules, justifying our actions by extraordinary circumstances, readily resorting to extrajudicial actions based on broad assertions of unlimited executive authority, and espousing public arguments against any constraints on how we treat those in our custody. The defense of democracy demands the defense of democracy's ideals. To ignore this is to risk alienation and isolation. And defeat.'' Additionally, Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us celebrates the 2005 passage of what many of us consider to be a punitive, controversial immigration bill, a bill that couldn't even pass the Republican Senate and a bill that President Bush does not even support. Mr. Speaker, it did not have to be this way, and it should not be this way. On Monday night the United States Senate passed its own version of the September 11 resolution, S. Res. 565, and I will insert a copy of the Senate bill at the conclusion of my remarks. Mr. Speaker, the Senate bill approaches this issue the right way. It sticks to remembering the victims, condemning the attacks and their perpetrators, recommitting the United States to fighting terrorism, and commending the members of our Armed Forces, law enforcement personnel, first responders, members of the intelligence community, and others who are on the front lines of this effort. The Senate bill was cosponsored by every single Senator, Republican and Democrat. Every single Senator put their names on this bill, and it was passed unanimously. For the life of me, I cannot figure out why the same thing is not good enough for the leadership in this House. Why on this subject, where unity is vitally important, does the leadership of this House seek disunity? Let us commemorate, not politicize, September 11. This resolution should not be a Republican resolution. It should be a resolution that defies party label. I am worried that some in this House are so consumed with politics that they would use this terrible tragedy for partisan gain, and I find that offensive. The resolution before us also states as fact that ``the Nation is safer than it was on September 11, 2001.'' Mr. Speaker, I would argue that the actions of this administration, particularly the war in Iraq, have made us less safe. Five years ago the world stood in sympathy and solidarity with America. Today, America's standing in the world is at the lowest point in history. Mr. Speaker, we invaded and now occupy a country that posed no imminent threat to the United States. Despite definitive and repeated findings that there were no ties between Iraq and al Qaeda, a finding most recently echoed by the Republican- controlled Senate Intelligence Committee, the President and Vice President continue their misleading efforts to link al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, Iraq, and 9/11 all together. The war in Iraq and the war against terrorism are distinct. The present Iraq policy, many of us believe, has made us less safe and must be changed. Even our top generals in Iraq have conceded that our policy in Iraq has actually produced more terrorists. This does not make us safer, Mr. Speaker. It makes us more isolated and more vulnerable in an increasingly dangerous world. We know that resources were diverted from Afghanistan, where the 9/11 deadly plot was born, in order to invade and occupy Iraq. And we know now that the trail of Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of 9/11, has grown stone cold. We know that the President's policies in Iraq have put an enormous strain on our military, with U.S. military readiness levels now at historic lows. We know that the independent 9/11 Commission has just issued a 5-year report card on President Bush and the Congress filled with D's and F's on homeland security. And I think we all know, if we are being honest with ourselves, that we in this Congress have underfunded so much of our homeland security. We know that the invasion and occupation of Iraq has increased the budget deficit to record proportions because this administration and Congress have done what no other President and Congress have ever done in the history of the United States: they have continued to fund this war completely outside the normal budget and to grant a series of tax cuts to the wealthiest of the wealthy during a time of war. And we know, Mr. Speaker, that Iraq is rapidly descending into an ethnic and religious civil war with a daily civilian toll that tells every single Iraqi that nowhere is safe from violence, not their homes, not their jobs, not their schools, not even their hospitals. Mr. Speaker, this resolution could have been, should have been a thoughtful, bipartisan commemoration of September 11, its victims, and the men and women who fight to protect us each and every day. That is what we should have on the floor today. Unfortunately, the resolution before us does not meet that standard. Members of this House have differences about policy. There are differences about the war in Iraq, and I respect and appreciate my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have a very different opinion on this war than I do. We have differences about protecting civil liberties. We have differences about how best to deal with immigration. But there are no differences, there are no differences, when it comes to honoring the memories of those lost on September 11. There are no differences when it comes to commending the men and women on the front lines of the war on terror. And there are no differences when it comes to the desire to protect this country from future terrorist attacks. Mr. Speaker, I regret that the leadership of this House, during this most solemn week, has chosen not to focus solely on the things that bring us together as Members of Congress and as Americans S. Res. 565 Whereas on September 11, 2001, terrorists hijacked four civilian aircraft; crashed two of them into the towers of the World Trade Center in New York City; and crashed the third into the Pentagon outside Washington, DC; Whereas the fourth hijacked plane, United Airlines Flight 93, crashed in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, near the town of Shanksville, after the passengers and crew of that flight struggled with the terrorist-hijackers to take back control of the plane, ultimately preventing the flight from reaching its likely destination in Washington, DC; Whereas the heroic actions of the rescue workers, volunteers, Federal, State and local officials who responded to the attacks with courage, determination, and skill are to be commended; Whereas thousands of innocent Americans, and civilians from many other countries, were killed and injured as a result of these attacks; Whereas Congress declared, in the aftermath of the attacks, September 12, 2001 to be a National Day of Unity and Mourning; Whereas there has not been a terrorist attack on the United States homeland since the terrorist attacks five years ago; but al Qaeda has perpetrated terrorist attacks throughout the world against U.S. persons, facilities, and interests, as well as U.S. allies during that time; Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate: (1) commemorates the life of each individual who died as a result of the attacks of September 11, 2001; (2) extends its deepest condolences to the victims of these attacks, as well as to their families, friends, and loved ones; (3) once again condemns in the strongest possible terms the attacks, the terrorists who perpetrated them, and their sponsors; (4) commits to support the necessary steps to interdict and defeat terrorists who plot to do harm to the American people; (5) recommits itself and the nation to bringing to justice the perpetrators of the attacks, along with their sponsors; (6) honors and expresses its gratitude to members of its Armed Forces, law enforcement personnel, first responders, members of intelligence community and others who have bravely and faithfully participated in the War on Terrorism since September 11, 2001; (7) declares September 11, 2006, to be a National Day of Remembrance, in commemoration of the terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001; and (8) declares that when the Senate adjourns today, it stand adjourned as a further mark of respect to each individual who died as a result of the attacks of September 11, 2001. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just take issue with the gentleman from Texas. He says this whole question of the Nation being safer than it was on September 11, 2001, has nothing to do with this resolution. Well, that is what it says in this resolution, if he reads the resolution. There are some things contained in this resolution that people over here, and that people on both sides legitimately have some questions with. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just respond to the gentleman by again pointing to what the other body, the United States Senate, did where 100 Senators, Democrats, Republicans, came together as one, cosponsored a resolution and voted unanimously for a resolution. That is what we should be doing during this solemn week, not introducing legislation that inspires, quite frankly, the kind of debate that we have here today about issues that really are not about commemorating that day but issues that are highly controversial, ranging from everything to immigration to civil liberties to you name it. That is not the way we should be doing this Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind some of the previous speakers here that the title of this bill, H. Res. 994, is expressing the sense of the House of Representatives on the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks launched against the United States on September 11, 2001. And I do that because we have heard a lot of speeches here and we have talked about a lot of different issues that are separate from commemorating those who lost their lives, those who sacrificed on September 11, those who continue to protect our country. We have talked about the PATRIOT Act and border security. We have talked about a whole litany of things, and those are all certainly important issues and legitimate issues for us to discuss, how best to protect this country. Those are things we should be debating here on a regular basis on the House floor, but they are controversial, some of these initiatives. They are controversial with a lot of Members of your own party. I wish we would get back to the point that this resolution here today, and what some of us are troubled by, is that this should be about unity and this should be about honoring those who sacrificed, those who lost their lives, those who have served our country so well. That is what this should be about and not a litany of controversial items that you want to promote during a campaign year. If you want to do that, do it in a separate resolution, take up a separate bill, but we should all be together when it comes to a resolution on September 11. The United States Senate got it right. They got it right over in the United States Senate. We should do the same here in the House. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman for his comments and reclaim my time. Mr. Speaker, let me state for the record that in 2002, when we had a resolution on this issue, it passed unanimously. In 2004 and 2005, the resolutions that were brought to this floor were jointly sponsored by Representatives Hyde and Lantos both times. There was an effort at bipartisanship then, and I think that is the model. That is the model we should be following here. The bottom line is this is not a resolution that has been produced as a result of bipartisan consultation. But let me go back to the point I was trying to make in the beginning, and that is, this is a very solemn week, and we should not be doing anything but trying to bring this House together like they did in the United States Senate so that we speak with one voice and that we make it clear that we are together when it comes to commemorating those who lost their lives and those who have sacrificed so much and those who continue to put their lives on the line for the protection of all people. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. And I would say to the gentleman that on Monday, those Members who were in town, Republicans and Democrats, gathered on the East Front of the Capitol in solidarity. There were no campaign speeches, there was no politics. People gathered in solidarity together to commemorate those who lost their lives and to honor those who gave such tremendous sacrifice on September 11th. The United States Senate on Monday night had a resolution that every single Member of the United States Senate, Republican and Democrat, both, all co-sponsored and passed unanimously. There was unity. There was a desire not to debate the PATRIOT Act, not to debate the House version of the Border Security bill which the Republican-controlled Senate doesn't like and even the President doesn't like. It was about putting all those issues aside where there are differences, not just between Democrats and Republicans, I would say to the gentleman from Texas, but on issues like the PATRIOT Act there were a number of Republicans who had concerns about it. So this is not about one party versus the other. But on an issue like this involving commemorating the terrible tragedy of September 11 and honoring those who sacrificed their lives, I would like to think in the spirit here of what happened Monday night and using the example of what went on in the United States Senate, that we could rise to the occasion Mr. Speaker, I would yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

Mr. McGOVERN. Once I finish my sentence.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, yesterday we commemorated the fifth anniversary of that terrible morning of September 11, 2001. In communities across our Nation, people gathered to remember those whose lives were lost and, once again, our thoughts and our prayers were with the families, friends, neighbors and colleagues who lost someone on that tragic day. There is no doubt that September 11 changed America. There is no doubt that every American understands that there are individuals and networks of extremists who want to attack America and that terror is their weapon of choice. And there is also no doubt that no attack of any kind can harm the pride each of us has in being an American and the privilege of living in the United States of America. But I have to admit, Madam Speaker, that I am deeply disturbed by many of the statements and speeches that have been coming out of the White House over the past days and weeks leading up to this year's remembrance of September 11. Five years ago, the world stood in sympathy and solidarity with America. Today, America's standing in the world is at its lowest point in history. More disturbing, the level of hatred against the United States is at its highest, and is spreading. This does not make us safer, Madam Speaker. It makes us more isolated and more vulnerable in an increasingly dangerous world. Over the past few days and again last night, President Bush has finally admitted that he went into Iraq knowing there were no ties to al Qaeda, no ties to those who did us such grave harm on September 11. We know now that there was no threat from weapons of mass destruction. Intelligence was manipulated. The mission of the U.N. weapons inspectors inside Iraq was deliberately cut short by our invasion. And no weapons of mass destruction were ever found. We know now that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld threatened to fire any military officer, no matter what his degree of seniority, expertise and experience, if he dared put forward a plan for stabilizing and consolidating Iraq following the invasion. We know now that resources were diverted from Afghanistan, where the 9/11 deadly plot was born, in order to invade and occupy Iraq. And we know now that the trail of Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of 9/11, has grown stone cold. We know now that the President's policies in Iraq have put an enormous strain on our military, with U.S. military readiness levels now at historic lows. We know now that the independent 9/11 Commission has just issued a 5- year report card on President Bush and the Republican Congress filled about D's and F's on homeland security. We know now that the invasion and occupation of Iraq has increased the budget deficit to record proportions because this administration and this Republican Congress have done what no other President or Congress has ever done in the history of the United States. They have continued to fund this war completely outside the normal budget and to grant a series of tax cuts to the wealthiest of the wealthy during a time of war. And we now know that Iraq is rapidly descending into an ethnic and religious civil war, with a daily civilian death toll that tells every single Iraqi that nowhere is safe from violence, not their homes, not their jobs, not their schools, not even their hospitals. And still President Bush told us last night to stay the course. Told us that those who call for change or criticize his policy are giving comfort to the terrorists. Even worse, Vice President Cheney said on Sunday's Meet the Press that not only was the invasion and occupation of Iraq the right thing to do but, quote, if we had to do it over again, we'd do exactly the same thing. Exactly the same thing, Madam Speaker? Has this administration not learned a single lesson over the past 5 years? Did they intend to squander the good will of the international community? Did they intend for Iraq to fall into violent, sectarian civil war? Did they intend for our military to be stretched so thin it will take years and tens of billions of dollars to repair and rebuild? Did they intend for the Taliban to reassert control over parts of Afghanistan? Did they intend the historic, record- breaking deficits that will burden our children and our grandchildren? Is there not one single decision or policy they might consider changing? This is why we need new leadership and new direction, Madam Speaker. We need to change course and we need to do it now before our resources and the precious lives of our troops and our citizens are further sacrificed on the altar of these failed policies.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Let me say to my friend from Tennessee, I mean every word I say. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time I have left.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to our distinguished Democratic leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, people in this country are tired of politics as usual, and what is before us today is politics as usual. It is cynical and it is wrong. This is a press release. This is a political stunt. My friends on the other side of the aisle know that there will be no minimum wage increase when you tie it to tax cuts for Paris Hilton. It is just not going to happen. The Senate has already said that this is going nowhere. You know that. To my Republican friends who have taken to the floor today to say that they support the minimum wage, to the 20 Republicans who signed a letter to their leader asking that we bring the minimum wage to the floor, let me say that it is not enough to go through the motions. If you really believe that we should have an increase in the minimum wage, which has been stuck at $5.15 for 9 years, then you need to demand action. And what we are doing today is not demanding action. Mr. Speaker, during those 9 years since we last raised the minimum wage, this Congress has given itself eight pay raises. There is something fundamentally wrong when we can give ourselves pay raise after pay raise, but we cannot raise the minimum wage for those who are making $5.15 an hour. These families work hard. They are working every day. They are living in poverty. Mr. Speaker, do the right thing. Let us have a clean up-or-down vote on the minimum wage. Vote against this rule.

Mr. McGOVERN

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