Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I again rise in strong opposition to this martial law rule. We have rules and procedures in this House, and today by bringing this martial law rule to the floor and by bringing a budget bill to the floor, sight unseen, we are breaking those rules. We are basically making a mockery of the procedures that are in place to ensure that Members of Congress, at a minimum, know what in fact they are voting on when some of these bills come to the floor. This is not a trivial matter. The budget is a big deal. It sets out our priorities. And it is totally appropriate for people to be able to debate all different issues openly and on the House floor. And I would again, after listening to the gentleman from Georgia, I guess my question to him is, again, if things are so wonderful, why can't you even get Members of your own party to get behind a budget? But putting that aside, this vote we are about to have is on process, it is on whether or not Members of Congress, Republicans and Democrats, should have the right to read what is in the proposed budget. I don't think that that is too much to ask for. I don't think that is unreasonable. I think most Americans who are watching this debate are scratching their heads saying, why can't you show us what is in this bill? What is the big secret? When are we going to have this budget available to us? When are we going to know what is in it? When are we going to find out what deals have been negotiated behind closed doors? I don't think that is unreasonable. So I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this martial law rule, and let us demand that we have a process in place in this House and have some integrity. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend from Florida (Mr. Putnam) 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, we waited months for this? The fact is what we have before us is a sham. What the Republicans have come up with is essentially a shell game. Under this so-called grand compromise, moderate Republicans can increase spending on domestic programs, but only if they cut other domestic priorities. In other words, if you want more money for children's immunizations or more money for No Child Left Behind, you have to cut funding for Medicaid or further cut student aid. This is the classic definition of robbing Peter to pay Paul. So to the moderates, let me say after all of us, you have got some words, but in reality you have got nothing. Do not be a cheap date. The responsibility is to the people of this country to make sure that their needs are met, not to saving face. Heaven forbid that the richest in this country do not get their capital gains tax cuts so that we can adequately fund health care and veterans benefits and education. No, those precious tax cuts are protected. So tonight the crowd on Wall Street can have champagne and caviar at Tavern on the Green while the people who work on Main Street are scratching their heads with disbelief and asking why has their government forgotten them? The misplaced priorities demonstrated in this budget are astounding. Last month we had a debate on the first rule for the fiscal year 2007 budget resolution. My friends on the other side of the aisle laid out their plans and did their best to defend their priorities. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, their plans are misguided, and their priorities are out of step with the American people. This is a major reason why it has taken weeks and weeks for the Republican leadership to try to jam their budget through this House. Under the Republican budget, our Nation's deficits get worse, not better. Remember, under Republican policies, the 5 largest deficits in the history of the United States of America will have occurred in 5 consecutive years. Further, this budget provides only $50 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I cannot figure out if they have forgotten about these wars or somehow stumbled onto an exit strategy. The truth is that we know the administration will request hundreds of billions of dollars for these wars in the next few years, but this budget makes no mention of that. Under the Republican budget, up is down, down is up, and the war we see every day is not really happening. The Republicans once again underfund port security, despite their rhetoric of the Dubai Ports deal. Recently the Republicans followed the Democrats' lead and opposed President Bush's approval of the United Arab Emirates control of American ports. But when faced with the opportunity to follow through on their rhetoric, they decided to cut port security by over $6 billion over the next 5 years. Under this budget resolution, the Republicans make $228 billion available for new tax cuts, but in the process cut important education, health, and environmental programs. Cutting these programs for tax cuts is deplorable. Deceiving the American people about future funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is flat wrong. But the most egregious thing about this budget is the way it disrespects our veterans. My friend from Florida is fond of saying that facts are a stubborn thing. Indeed they are, and here are just a few facts: According to the Department of Defense, there are almost 297,000 troops currently stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since 2003, the beginning of the war in Iraq, more than 1.2 million troops have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. These are troops that are most likely to need the services of the Veterans Affairs health care systems. These are the troops that will need the most help from this Congress. The costs of their treatment are substantial, yet the Republican budget actually cuts the funding that supports the veterans health care systems. The truth is there are two parts of the veterans funding in this budget, mandatory funding that is guaranteed to be there, and discretionary funding that is subject to appropriations. When mandatory funding is subtracted from the overall funding level, the truth is revealed; and the truth is that after fiscal year 2007 the amount of funding for veterans decreases by $4 billion. The administration claims they can live with these decreases because the number of veterans will decrease over the next few years. Well, the truth is that there was a 21 percent increase in the number of Iraq war veterans using the VA health care system in the first 3 months of 2006 alone. As of March 14, 2006, the VA had already treated 144,426 veterans, 33,858 more than the administration projected would use the VA system over the entire year. The administration projected that it would treat 18,000 veterans from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars for post-traumatic stress disorder for fiscal year 2006, but as of March 14, 2006, VA data shows that it is already treating 20,638 veterans for PTSD, an increase of 2,638 before the middle of March. How then with good conscience can they claim that the number of veterans needing care through the VA health systems will go down in the future? This is either dangerously naive or deliberately misleading. And the claim that the VA could get by with reduced funding would be laughable if it didn't have such serious ramifications. Just look at what happened last year. The Republican leadership in the House provided $1.5 billion less than what the veterans services organizations recommended for the VA. For months we were told by the Republicans that, don't worry, everything will be fine. But finally in November the leadership finally relented and provided the amount needed to provide care for our veterans because they saw what was going on. Well, it is deja vu all over again. The Republicans are calling for cuts to the VA system, but we all know we are going to need to provide more funding to meet the demand of the current soldiers who will be the veterans of tomorrow. Mr. Speaker, the Democrats have alternatives. We have a plan that is simple. Besides reducing the deficit, reinstating the pay-as-you-go- system, and properly funding education, health care, and homeland security, we give the veterans the services and respect that they deserve. Our budget provides $6 billion more than the Republican budget does for veterans health care. My Republican friends charge the Democrats believe enough is never enough. Well, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to America's veterans, I strongly believe that enough is enough only when veterans have timely access to quality health care that they were promised. I believe enough is enough only when our veterans are not forced to wait 6 months for a doctor's appointment. I believe enough is enough only when our veterans and our veterans' families are cared for with the utmost respect and are not shortchanged. We can and we must do better. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York, the ranking Democrat on the House Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Father Brendan Nally. I am proud to join with the members of Our Lady of the Rosary in Clinton, Massachusetts in saluting him with a special celebration of his retirement as well as the 50th Anniversary of his Ordination to the priesthood in the Catholic Church. Since 1989, Father Nally has served as Pastor of ``Holy Rosary,'' as the Church located in the Acre District of Clinton is known. As the one priest assigned to the Parish during the past 17 years, Father Nally has singularly ministered to the spiritual needs of all the parishioners--saying all the daily and weekly Masses, performing all the religious sacraments and ceremonies including baptisms, weddings and funerals, visiting the sick and elderly, as well as performing all the administrative tasks and duties required for the operation of the Church. Throughout this period, Father Nally has endeared himself not only to the many families and members of his Parish but to countless citizens of the Town of Clinton. As a recognized community leader, Father Nally has been a strong supporter of the local youth of the town. In addition to coordinating and overseeing a strong religious education program for the children of Holy Rosary, he has ensured that a program of other youth activities be maintained. He has also been a loyal fan and booster of the local school athletic teams, attending and cheering on the town's athletes to victory. When the Clinton Public Schools needed a clergy member to participate in the Baccalaureate Exercises for graduating seniors, Father Nally was there. Whenever other organizations needed help, Father Nally was only too glad to be of assistance--as, for example, when a local Alcoholics Anonymous chapter or an Irish step-dancing group needed a meeting place and the parish hall was made available to them. As if he didn't already have enough duties and obligations to fulfill during his busy days, Father Nally also answered the call and served for a number of years as Chaplain to the Massachusetts Department of Corrections Pre-Release Center in the nearby town of Lancaster. Prior to his most recent assignment as Pastor of Our Lady of the Rosary, Father Nally had served as a Pastor and Associate Pastor at a number of other Parishes throughout the Diocese of Worcester in Central Massachusetts. Additionally, his priestly service included periods as a faculty member and Headmaster at several Catholic High Schools in the region. A native of Fitchburg, Massachusetts, Father Nally attended LaSalette Preparatory Seminary and LaSalette Major Seminary in Ipswich, Massachusetts and was ordained a Priest on May 5, 1956. The 50th Anniversary of Father Nally's Ordination as a Priest, and his remarkable record of outstanding service to the Church, certainly deserves to be applauded and celebrated. His rich legacy of religious ministry and service has touched and improved the lives of so many people, and I am truly honored to offer my personal thanks and congratulations. I know that my colleagues will join me in paying tribute to this wonderful man of God and in extending very best wishes for a retirement blessed with continued health and happiness to Father Brendan Nally.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, last night, once again, the majority on the Rules Committee had an opportunity to demonstrate that this House is capable of debating the many important issues relevant to the defense authorization bill. But once again, they turned their backs to a full and open debate. Once again, the majority on the Rules Committee had an opportunity to demonstrate that Members of the minority and their concerns will be treated with respect. But once again, the majority on the Rules Committee showed that courtesy, respect, and collegiality are not part of their vocabulary. Mr. Speaker, when a bill has a provision that directly affects another Member's district and that Member wishes to offer an amendment to debate the consequences of such a provision, simple courtesy requires that the amendment should be made in order. Yet last night, the gentlewoman from California, Congresswoman Capps, was denied her right to speak and act on behalf of her constituents and to have her amendment made in order to strike from the bill the section that prohibits the National Park Service from carrying out the 1997 court- ordered settlement that stops trophy hunting on Santa Rosa Island. Twice the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee was asked whether he had any problems with Mrs. Capps offering her amendment, and he said he did not. I respect the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and I appreciate the work that he and the ranking member, Mr. Skelton, have done together. But if the chairman had no objection, and I have the transcript here, then why did the Rules Committee have an objection to this? Of the 100 amendments submitted to the Rules Committee for consideration, scarcely a third of those were allowed to be debated under yesterday's rule and this rule. This morning, this rule makes 23 amendments in order, 10 of which are bipartisan amendments or offered by Democrats; and of those 10, four simply seek reports or studies. Meanwhile, as we have heard, the Rules Committee denied the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, the most honorable and most distinguished congressman, Ike Skelton, the right to debate the only amendment he submitted to the Rules Committee. That amendment would have let this House debate whether or not to reduce drug copayments for military families. What a horrific show of disrespect, not only to Mr. Skelton, but to our military families who sacrifice every single day for our Nation. It is wrong. And if Republicans want to increase drug copayments for our military families, then make your case. But on our side of the aisle we believe the opposite, and at least there should have been a debate and a vote on this matter. If Members want to know what is wrong with this House, why civility has been lost in this House, why this House can no longer be described in any sense of the word a deliberative body, you only have to look at the rule for the defense authorization bill. The majority picks and chooses what will be debated, ignores substantive amendments, and rejects even the ranking member the right to offer important amendments. In addition to rejecting the amendments offered by Ranking Member Skelton and Congresswoman Capps, the majority of the Rules Committee decided this House isn't the place to debate accountability in Iraq, again denying debate on a bipartisan amendment submitted by Mr. Tierney to establish a Truman Commission on Iraq. It has decided that this is not the place to debate nonproliferation issues. A bipartisan amendment was denied that was coordinated by Mr. Andrews; that this isn't the place to talk about alternative energy resources and research and the applications within the military. They denied Mr. Hoyer and Mr. Udall their amendments. This is not the place, according to the majority of the Rules Committee to talk about religious tolerance. They denied the amendment by Mr. Israel. Or this is not the place to talk about torture. They denied an amendment by Mr. Markey. These are not frivolous matters, Mr. Speaker. They are profound matters affecting our national defense and the health and the safety of our military personnel and their families. We read and we hear about them every day in the news. We are asked about these issues by our constituents, and this House should have had an opportunity to openly debate each one of them. But not in this House. Not under this leadership. So I urge my colleagues to reject this rule. Let us have a genuine debate on one of the few bills that comes before this House where all of these amendments are germane. Let us return democracy to the U.S. House of Representatives.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 5018.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 90, and I wish to express my respect and admiration for the gentlelady from California, Congresswoman Solis, for her important leadership on this tragic issue. Since 1993, nearly 440 women have been killed in Ciudad Juarez and the State of Chihuahua, Mexico. Most of the victims are young, poor women. Nearly one-third worked in maquiladora factories that flourish along the U.S.-Mexican border; another third were students; Over 100 of these women were sexually assaulted prior to their murders, and these cases may be related. Other murders appear to be the product of domestic and intimate partner violence. Regrettably, the Mexican authorities have done little to investigate the murders: According to human rights investigations into these murders, at least 130 police, prosecutors, and forensic officials were negligent or abusive in their handling of the murder investigations. Frequently, these officers of the law blame the victim for her own violent death. They have ignored, deceived, harassed and even attacked the families of the victims. While a few men have been convicted for some of the sexual murders, several of the victims' families believe these men are scapegoats, while the real perpetrators remain free at- large. As long as the wrong people are in prison, the killers remain unpunished and able to kill again and again. We know that the police have used torture to obtain confessions from several people, even though no physical evidence connected these individuals to the crimes. For example, days after eight women's bodies were found in a field in downtown Juarez, two men were arrested and tortured into confessing to their murders. No physical evidence links them to the crime. Police killed one of their lawyers. One of the men died in prison. The judge presiding over the case ignored the remaining detainee's credible allegations of torture and the lack of evidence against him, and convicted him to 50 years in prison for the murders. The families of the murdered women do not believe he is the person responsible for their daughters' deaths. Mr. Speaker, the Ciudad Juarez murders are an issue that embraces both sides of the border: U.S. citizens have been arrested for the murders, have been victims of the murders, and have had loved ones lost to murder. U.S. citizen Cynthia Kiecker and her husband, a Mexican national, were arrested and tortured in June 2003, accused of the murder of a young woman in Chihuahua. They were acquitted in December 2004. In another case, one U.S. citizen's daughter disappeared in July 2000. I believe that the Mexican government will respond to U.S. and international pressure to solve these murders and bring peace of mind to the victims' families, and restore peace and security to the people who live in the State of Chihuahua and Ciudad Juarez, in particular. Already, as a result of international pressure, the federal Mexican government has appointed a special commissioner to prevent violence against women in Juarez, as well as appointing a special prosecutor to find out what went wrong with the previous murder investigations. But Mexican federal and state authorities have made too many promises, and still there is too little progress in any of these investigations. Mr. Speaker, H. Con. Res. 90 will clearly tell the families of these women that their voices and their pleas for justice have not gone unheard. They have our sympathy, and they have our support. But passage of this bill will also send a clear message to the Mexican authorities that the United States Congress is concerned about these murders, willing to have our government assist in their investigation, and that we want the perpetrators of these heinous acts arrested and put behind bars. The lives of all these young women had meaning and promise. Let us remember them now, and solemnly vow to their families that we will work to bring their killers to justice.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, 91 years ago, a systematic and deliberate campaign of genocide was initiated by the Turkish Ottoman Empire against its Armenian population. Beginning in 1915, and continuing over the next eight years, over one and a half million Armenians were tortured and murdered, and another half million were forced from their homeland into exile. In his annual April 24th commemoration statement, President Bush once again failed to acknowledge this annihilation of a people as genocide. In a time when the denial of the Armenian genocide is again on the rise in Turkey--and through its agents, even here in the United States as witnessed by a federal lawsuit in Massachusetts opposed to our public school history curriculum on genocide--President Bush once again squandered an opportunity to demonstrate American courage and leadership and speak out with moral clarity on the issue of genocide. By failing to affirm the Armenian Genocide, President Bush insults the suffering endured by the Armenian people and especially the remaining survivors of the genocide, most of whom are now in their 90s. Luckily, such leadership and courage is not lacking among the Armenian-American community. Not only do they continue their historic work on the recognition and documentation of the Armenian Genocide, but they are genuine leaders and partners in efforts to educate Americans about the other genocides of the 20th and 21st Centuries--the Holocaust of World War II, Cambodia, Rwanda and Bosnia, to note some of the most prominent. Most recently, the Armenian-American community has been actively engaged in bringing to the attention of U.S. and world leaders the genocide going on right now in Darfur, Sudan. I would like to honor, in particular, the work of Mr. George Aghjayan, Chairman of the Armenian National Committee of Central Massachusetts, who has been especially active in education and organizing activities about Darfur. Mr. Aghjayan, who lives in Worcester, Massachusetts, has helped rally interest and support on Darfur not only from his own community, but from college students, religious leaders, and genocide survivors. I'm proud to be a member of the House Caucus on Armenian Issues, and to support the activities taking place today in the U.S. Congress in memory of the Armenian Genocide. I am more proud, however, to have had the opportunity to meet and learn from the extensive Armenian-American community in central Massachusetts and from their exemplary community leaders, like George Aghjayan and his wife, Joyce. Through them I have found my own voice and determination to denounce genocide wherever it is taking place, and to confront the culture of denial that would erase the historical record of the Armenian Genocide.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day for the United States House of Representatives. This rule, quite frankly, is an insult to every single Member of this body. This rule should be open, and instead this rule is typically restrictive. This rule should be defeated. The underlying bill, contrary to what you have heard here today, is not a reflection of bipartisan deliberation, because the truth is that deliberation is all but dead in this House. What everyone knows, and this leadership does not want to acknowledge, is that there is a direct connection between the corruption that has become so commonplace and the breakdown of the deliberative process. The sweetheart deals for special interests, liability protection for big drug companies, tax breaks for big oil companies at a time when these companies are gouging Americans at the pump, they get slipped into bills without the knowledge of the majority in this House, Democrat and Republican. Why? Because the Rules Committee regularly waives the rules that requires that Members have at least 3 days to review the legislation. They waive the rules that allow us to read the bill before it comes to the floor. Conference committees meet in secret. Big-ticket items are even put into bills after conference committees are closed. You can pass all the rules you want, but if you don't follow them, what good are they? The Rules Committee did hold a series of hearings on this bill, and speaker after speaker expressed their concerns with the way this House is being run. And yet the underlying bill does nothing to open up the process. The underlying bill does nothing to shine some light on this corrupt process. Nothing will change as a result of this bill. Norm Ornstein, the congressional scholar, testified before the Rules Committee and he said, the problem goes beyond corrupt lobbyists or the relationship between lobbyists and lawmakers. It gets to a legislative process that has lost the transparency, accountability and deliberation that are at the core of the American system. The failure to abide by basic rules and norms has contributed, I believe, to a loss of sensitivity among many Members and leaders about what is and what is not appropriate. Three-hour votes, 1,000-page-plus bills sprung on the floor with no notice, conference reports changed in the dead of night, self-executing rules that suppress debate along with an explosion of closed rules are just a few of the practices that have become common and are a distortion of regular order, and yet this bill does not even address any of those issues. I would say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, if you want to show some bipartisanship, if you want to promote a process that has some integrity, this should be an open rule. All Members should have an opportunity to come here and offer amendments to this bill to improve the quality of deliberations on this House floor. They should be able to come and to offer amendments to clean this place up. This rule is an outrage. Of all of the bills that we have considered here, if any one of them deserves an open rule, it is this. This is about the rules that govern this House. Vote ``no'' on this rule.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule to allow the House to consider the Boswell amendment on Iran nuclear programs. This amendment was offered in the Rules Committee last night, but was defeated on a straight party-line vote. It is yet another example of what I believe is the abuse of power by the Republican-dominated Rules Committee. Mr. Speaker, this amendment requires the Director of National Intelligence to submit reports to Congress on Iran's weapons of mass destruction every 90 days. It requires these reports to include an assessment of Iran's nuclear programs, an evaluation of intelligence sources, a summary of new intelligence for any information that would increase confidence in overall assessment. Mr. Speaker, we are deeply concerned over the ominous situation in Iran with regard to the potential for nuclear weapons in that country, and I think most Members of this body would agree that it is absolutely critical that we continue to monitor the situation very closely and receive frequent updates on Iran. We need to have constant and accurate updates on this very serious situation. There is too much at stake here for us to do less. Have we learned nothing from what we experienced with regard to the misleading intelligence and the false intelligence on Iraq? Have we learned nothing from the fact that this Congress did not do its job; did not take its oversight responsibility seriously; did not ask the questions; did not hold the administration accountable? Mr. Speaker, this should not be a controversial issue. Chairman Hoekstra and Ranking Member Harman have worked in a bipartisan way. This should have been worked out in a bipartisan way. I cannot imagine why anybody would be opposed to this amendment. Members should be aware that a ``no'' vote will not prevent consideration of the intelligence bill and will not affect any of the amendments that are in order under this rule, but a ``no'' vote will allow us to add this important amendment that seeks to fully understand the depth of the nuclear situation in Iran. I would again urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for this. This should be a bipartisan vote. There is no reason, there is no reason to vote this down unless somehow you do not want to hear the information; unless somehow you do not want to demand this administration be accountable and inform the Members of this Congress. On the issue of nuclear weapons in Iran, it should be every Member of this Congress, quite frankly, who should have access to relevant material. We need to learn our lesson. We are in a mess right now in Iraq. We are involved in a quagmire that has cost over 2,500 lives, hundreds of billions of dollars, and we know the intelligence was wrong. Let us do it right this time. Let us not rush into a war unnecessarily. Let us demand from this administration some accountability and some truth. Vote ``no'' on the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell) who is a member of the committee. (Mr. BOSWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself 7 minutes. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, H.R. 5020, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, deals with one of the most important aspects of our national security: our ability to gather and analyze intelligence effectively so that our policies are based on fact, not fantasy or obsessive desire, so that our Federal law enforcement agencies can defend us from the threat of attack, and so that our allies can rely on our resources for timely, coordinated operations in defense of freedom abroad. I want to commend Chairman Hoekstra and Ranking Member Harman and members of the Intelligence Committee for authorizing 100 percent of the funding required for our counterterrorism operations. Regrettably, President Bush only included 78 percent of this funding in his budget request; so I thank the committee for correcting this dangerous shortfall. The Intelligence Authorization Act traditionally receives strong bipartisan support and will likely receive that same support this year. But despite its many attributes, this bill could have and should have been better. This bill could have and should have required a dedicated funding line for the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. When Congress passed the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act in December 2004 in response to the findings and recommendations of the 9/ 11 Commission report, it created this board to serve as a civil liberties watchdog on the potential erosion of the basic constitutional rights of the American people in a post-9/11 world. Now, 15 months later, we find our concerns about basic civil rights to have been well founded, but the oversight board is barely up and running. The President did not nominate the members of the board for 9 months. The Senate took 5 months to confirm the chair and vice chair. And, once again, the President's budget failed to include a single penny for the board's operation in fiscal year 2007. This could have and should have been fixed in committee. Congressmen Hastings, Reyes, and Holt offered an amendment to provide $3 million in dedicated funding for the oversight board, an amendment that should have had bipartisan support. But the majority chose to reject this funding and abandon their promise to the American people to safeguard their most basic freedoms and rights. And last night in the Rules Committee, the Republican leadership compounded this mistake by denying Congressman Reyes the right to offer this same amendment for debate on the House floor. And then we have the issue of the National Security Agency's spying on U.S. citizens. In committee, Representative Eshoo offered a carefully crafted amendment to withhold 20 percent of the NSA's budget until the executive branch provided the Intelligence Committee with the total cost of its surveillance program. That is all: just inform the committee of this one number. The Eshoo amendment was not looking for more operational details. It was not passing judgment on whether the NSA's domestic spying program is legal or not, even though that is a controversial matter in this House. All it was looking for is how many of our tax dollars are being spent on this surveillance program. This is a question that should concern every single Member of this body on both sides of the aisle. But with just one exception, the Republican majority found it too much to ask and rejected the Eshoo amendment. Yesterday in the Rules Committee, the Republican leadership went even further. The Republican Rules Committee denied Representatives Schiff, Flake, Harman, and Inglis the right to offer their bipartisan amendment for debate. This amendment would have required a classified disclosure to the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees, the two committees with jurisdiction and oversight responsibilities over the NSA and the FISA process, on which U.S. citizens have been the subject of NSA electronic surveillance, and what criteria was used to target them. Such a classified report would allow Congress to understand the program and whether any current laws need to be amended to grant the President the authority he needs to carry out this program more effectively or make any changes to safeguard against abuse. In short, these two committees need this information in order to do their jobs, in order to carry out their oversight responsibilities. This bipartisan amendment should have received bipartisan support from the Rules Committee, but it did not; not from the Republican majority on this Rules Committee and certainly not from the Republican leadership of this House. It is outrageous, Madam Speaker. Many of us believe that when the President authorized the NSA surveillance of Americans, he broke the law, plain and simple. And when the Attorney General says that Congress somehow granted the authority for this program after September 11, he is just wrong. We are talking about the most basic fundamental civil liberties that protect the American people, and the Republican leadership will not even let us debate it. What are they afraid of? I would ask my Republican friends to re-read their Constitution. Congress was not designed to be a rubber stamp for the President. Congress was not designed to protect Members from difficult votes on controversial issues. Congress was not designed to protect the President's political rear end. But under this leadership that is exactly what Congress has become. If my friends on the other side of the aisle believe that this President should have the ability to spy on Americans without a warrant and without going to the FISA court, then they should write that bill and bring it to the floor. They should at least show that level of respect for this House and for this Constitution. I am willing to bet that the majority of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle believe that what the President is doing is wrong. But either way, the very least we could do is have a debate and a vote. Madam Speaker, 25 amendments were brought to the Rules Committee last night. They dealt with issues ranging from how the NSA carries out surveillance of American citizens to how the Intelligence Committee and other relevant committees are briefed about weapons of mass destruction or the situations in Iran, North Korea, Iraq, and other hot spots. They dealt with how information is classified or reclassified, how national security whistle-blowers are protected or punished, and whether and how the amount of funds requested and appropriated for various intelligence-related activities are reported to Congress. These are not trivial matters, Madam Speaker. Yet only five amendments, five amendments, Madam Speaker, plus the manager's amendment, were made in order under this highly restrictive rule. Why is the Republican leadership so afraid to debate these issues? Why is it so afraid to debate, period? After nearly 4 months of a lackluster Congress, are we suddenly on some tight time clock so there is no time to debate matters affecting national security? Do we need to get out of town by Thursday afternoon? I am happy to stay in town on Friday if it means we can get a full debate on the Intelligence Authorization Act. I am tired of restrictive rules. I am tired of stifling debate. I am tired of ignoring or running away from the big issues. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this restrictive rule and to support an open debate on important issues facing our national security and intelligence agencies. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) who was also shut out of being able to offer an amendment in the Rules Committee last night.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), who also was shut off being able to offer an amendment.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me, before I introduce our next speaker, let me just respond by saying what has the American people concerned is that we have a set of procedures in place, the so-called FISA procedures, which allow the President to put anybody under surveillance here in the United States providing that he gets a warrant. And he can even get a warrant after he puts somebody under surveillance. The question is why can't he follow the procedures in place? In my opinion, he is breaking the law. And I would also say that the other question is, why in the world, given the controversy on this issue, can't this Congress have an up-or- down vote on this issue? If the majority thinks that the President should be able to put anybody under surveillance he wants without a warrant, fine. Then write the bill and bring it to the floor, let us debate it and pass it up or down. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

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

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.