Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, 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, I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes so we can talk about H. Res. 711 which is providing for the consideration of H.R. 2828, the Water Supply, Reliability and Environmental Improvement Act. I was kind of hoping the gentleman might yield me 38 minutes instead of the customary 30 minutes; but then again, he is not in the chair so he is not able to do that today. Mr. Speaker, what happened yesterday on this House floor was a disgrace. And the Republican leadership who run this House should be ashamed of themselves. The majority Members who allowed that to happen yesterday should also be ashamed of themselves. The gentleman from Vermont along with several of his colleagues offered an amendment to strike a controversial provision of the PATRIOT Act. This provision allows authorities to demand library and Internet records of people who use our public libraries. Three years ago, Mr. Speaker, I voted against the PATRIOT Act because it expanded the authority of the Attorney General and the FBI without requiring any corresponding accountability. And yesterday I voted for the Sanders amendment because it protects the American people and our public libraries and book stores from the overreaching arm of the Department of Justice. Mr. Speaker, the Sanders amendment won. And this deliberative body, in this place where democracy is the standard, the Sanders amendment won. And after 15 minutes there were 213 people voting for the amendment, and only 206 voting against it. That is a clear victory. One does not need a Ph.D. in mathematics to figure out that the Sanders amendment won, fair and square. Yet the House Republican leadership held the vote open for 23 more minutes for a total of 38 minutes so they could twist the arms of their rank and file to change their vote so they could rig this vote. After these 38 minutes were over and the vote was finally closed, the vote was tied 210 to 210. The Republican leadership did what they do best, they hijacked the democratic process and they did it. And they did it because they could, and they did it because they could get away with it. What happened yesterday on the House floor was unique in only one respect, Mr. Speaker, and that is it happened in broad daylight. Usually, this heavy-handedness happens late into the night or in the early morning hours so that nobody is watching, so that there is nobody in the press gallery who was watching, so that people at home are asleep. So what happened yesterday was unique only in that one respect. Mr. Speaker, the actions of the Republican majority have diminished the people's House. They have made a mockery of democracy, and they have demonstrated a heavy-handedness that is becoming all too common here. Yesterday, once again, the Republican majority demonstrated an incredible arrogance toward the American people. They demonstrated an incredible contempt for the Members of this House, Members of their own party who they intimidated into changing their votes. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, they are unqualified to run this people's House. They have made a laughing stock of this place. They have turned this House into a national embarrassment. This is unacceptable. This is unacceptable, Mr. Speaker. And the American people need to know what is going on here. This is not a deliberative body anymore. This is not a place of democracy. This is not a place where people can debate ideas, where people then can vote, Members can vote and then the majority wins. This place is not being run the way it is supposed to be run. It is an absolute disgrace. Mr. Speaker, this bill addresses an issue that affects the State of California--the distribution of water from north to south, and other related issues unique to California. However, I am concerned with many of the provisions in the bill and their potential to impact all of us. Specifically, I'm concerned about a seemingly technical provision in this bill that could have far-reaching effects on how water is used in California and how we conduct our business here in Congress. Section 103(b)(5)(A) of this bill grants an ongoing, rolling authorization to the Federal Bureau of Reclamation to plan and build water projects in the California Bay-Delta area. In plain English, this means that Congress would be writing a blank check to the Department of Interior to build as many billion-dollar dams in central California as they want, even if these projects end up harming the environmentally sensitive areas we say we want to protect. Mr. Speaker, the way our legislative process is supposed to work is that Congress writes the laws and sets the policies about how and where our tax dollars get spent. The job of the executive branch is to implement these laws through the various agencies of the Federal government. This bill sets up a process that turns the legislative process on its head. It hands over the Congressional power to spend public funds to an unaccountable Federal agency. It tells officials in the Department of Interior they can spend billions of the taxpayers' dollars any way they want and then, only afterwards, check in with Congress. And if Congress doesn't act in 120 days, the Department can continue on its merry way, spending billions of dollars on dams and other water projects that may or may not accomplish the objectives of the CALFED water agreement. Supporters of this provision claim there are precedents for their so- called ``non-project-specific authorization'' language, but their precedents involve only small projects and small dollar amounts. In the case of the CALFED Water Project, the public policy stakes are just too high for Congress to hand over our decision-making responsibilities to a Federal agency. Congress has a constitutional responsibility to make these kinds of decisions, and we shouldn't shirk those responsibilities by passing the buck to a Federal agency. The way the CALFED project is managed over the next 30 years will have a profound effect on the 35 million water-drinking citizens of the State of California, the State's agricultural industry, and some of our country's most fragile and endangered ecosystems. And what about our responsibility to be careful stewards of taxpayer dollars? I constantly hear fiscal conservatives on the other side of the aisle complain about the lack of budget discipline. Prior to the recess, these fiscal conservatives led a charge trying to slow down Federal spending, and make it harder for Congress to spend taxpayer dollars. But this bill basically gives the executive branch a blank check to spend on potentially costly projects like dams and canals. I hope that some of those same members join me today in expressing concern about a policy that allows an agency to ``Spend the money first, then check in with Congress later.'' That doesn't strike me as a policy that will help us get out of the deep budget deficit hole--a hole that has been deepened by President Bush and this Republican Congress. Mr. Speaker, this provision is bad policy and this bill is poorly drafted. I will vote against this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. McGOVERN. I would like to ask the Speaker how long he is going to keep this roll call open.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, in an attempt to avoid today the travesty which occurred on the House floor yesterday, I am going to urge my colleagues at the end of this debate on the rule to vote no on the previous question so that I will be able to offer an amendment that will state very simply that during consideration of H.R. 2828, a record vote by electronic device shall not be held open for the sole purpose of reversing the outcome of a vote. So I will urge my colleagues to vote no on the previous question.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I just want to inquire of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), I will be closing on my side.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the sad reality is that there are no rules in this House of Representatives. Tradition and procedures of this House are routinely ignored. Members will be treated with disrespect, members even on the Republican side. This Republican leadership has diminished the people's House. It is shameful. I appeal to Members on the Republican side to stand up to the bullying of their own leadership. This trampling of the rules and traditions of this House is not an isolated problem. It happens every day. And the only way it will stop is for good people to stand up and to say enough is enough. I am urging Members to vote no on the previous question so I can offer an amendment which says simply that during the consideration of H.R. 2828, a record vote by electronic device shall not be held up for the sole purpose of reversing the outcome of a vote. That is all it says. How can you be against that? I urge Members to vote no on the previous question. Vote yes on my amendment to stand up with us for what is right. We know what happened yesterday was wrong. Show some guts. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment be printed in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, if I could ask my colleague from Washington, does he have only one speaker to close?

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time. I want to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that I could bring up an amendment which simply says that during the consideration of H.R. 2828, a record vote by electronic device shall not be held open for the sole purpose of reversing the outcome of a vote. Yesterday was a disgrace, and the only way it will never happen again is if some of my Republican colleagues stand up to the bully of their own leadership. Vote ``no'' on the previous question. Vote ``yes'' on the McGovern amendment. Show some guts. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

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 demand a recorded vote.

Mr. McGOVERN. I object, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained on rollcall vote Nos. 355-358. If I were present, I would have voted: ``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 355 (the Gordon Amendment); ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 356 (the Jackson-Lee Amendment); ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 357 (the Larson Amendment); ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 358 (the Motion to Recommit). Personal Explanation

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, a little more than a week ago, Edward J. Philbin retired as Superintendent of Schools for the Town of Clinton, Massachusetts marking the end of an extraordinary thirty-five year career in public education. As a foreign language teacher, department chair, high school principal and administrator, Ed Philbin earned a well-deserved reputation for passionate and tireless devotion to the education and development of children and young people. On June 24, 2004, a reception attended by more than 200 of his colleagues, family members, former students and friends was held at the Clinton Town Hall to honor his lasting contributions to the communities of Clinton and Worcester. Due to votes scheduled here in the House of Representatives, I was unable to attend that reception to personally express my great respect, deep gratitude and best wishes to Ed Philbin for a happy and healthy retirement. However, I would like to submit for the record the remarks delivered at that tribute by his son Chris, a member of my congressional staff, which I think capture the essence of this remarkable man. Remarks by Christopher R. Philbin on Behalf of the Philbin Family Honoring Edward J. Philbin on the Occasion of His Retirement June 24, 2004, Fallon Memorial Auditorium, Clinton, Massachusetts It has been alluded to earlier tonight, but I think it bears repeating. The only thing our Father has done longer and with more success than work in public education, is to be married to our Mother for nearly 36 years, his closest friend and most loyal supporter. So on behalf of our Mom, my brother Ed and his wife Lynn; my sister Cara, a high school English teacher in New Jersey, and her husband Tim who couldn't be here tonight; my brother Matthew and his longtime girlfriend Christie Mullin; and the rest of our family, we would like to thank all of you for being here to pay tribute to a guy that we happen to think very highly of. We are especially pleased that our Grandmother, Dorothy Philbin, is here tonight for this special occasion. As many of you know, this retirement party was originally supposed to be a surprise because our Dad would have much preferred come June 30th to leave the keys on the desk with a kind note for Mr. Gaw and quietly slip out the side door. But that was not to be, and so when our Father found out about this party it required some persuasion from the gang of four that he affectionately refers to as the `girls'--you all know them as Mary Neeley-Winkler, Marilyn Tierney, Maureen Weatherell and Christine Bonci--to convince him to allow this party to go forward. It was a closed-door meeting from which no minutes will be released but I'm guessing that when our Dad protested he was told something like ``shut up, smile and be gracious!'' Our family would like to thank the four of them for the work they've put into planning and organizing this party and for being so good to our Dad these last five years; for putting a smile on his face; and for educating him on the finer points of KENO. We would especially like to thank Mary Neeley-Winkler who in addition to being our Dad's right hand these last several years has helped my brother and his wife find a house, plan my sister's wedding and given my brother Matt a part-time summer job. In short, we are all indebted to Mary and without saying much more, as far as we're concerned, you can't put a price on what Mary Neeley means to this family. I'm not sure Matt and Cara will remember this, but Tripp certainly will. Growing up, one of the many summer rituals in our house was to accompany our Dad to the old high school in early August to help him unpack and date stamp the new foreign language text books for the upcoming school year. We would follow him down the long promenade into the school, past the trophy cases in the lobby, and down the hall to the second door on the left marked ``STORAGE''. At the time, that storage closet doubled as the chairman of the foreign language department's office and inside there were makeshift shelves filled with books toppling in on his desk with barely enough room to turn around. Our Dad would lead us out of his office into the language lab where we would fool around with the tape recorders and earphones for awhile before he put us to work unpacking the boxes of books. During the rather mundane process of unpacking the books, what quickly became apparent to us even at that early age, was the excitement and enthusiasm our Dad had for the coming school year. His passion was palpable. This is a man who clearly loved to teach. It wasn't long after each school year started, that our parents would have scores of students parading through our house to videotape an installment of the long-running French Soap Opera or French Newscast that he had his students both script and act in as a way to learn the language. Each of us were granted a cameo appearance in those productions but I think Cara set the record by appearing in twelve consecutive editions of the French Soap Opera. When his students weren't shooting a movie in our house, they were there sampling foreign cuisine our Mother prepared for members of the International Club which our Dad founded or compiling photographs for the yearbook when he served as the faculty advisor to that activity. Our Dad never suffered from that notion that teachers had to keep their students at a safe distance; that you had to erect a firewall between what you did for work and what you did at home. He wanted to know all of his students and wanted his students to know him. Some of his students were actually granted the unique privilege of babysitting his children and many of them bear the physical and emotional scars to prove it. Others are still in therapy from the experience and were advised by their counselors not to come tonight. When our Dad wasn't inviting students into our home, he was inviting them to travel around the world with him to London and Paris, to Quebec and to Rome, and he bears the physical and emotional scars from those trips. Our Dad sought to do more than just teach a language, he tried to introduce his students to another culture and he thought to do that best you often times had to go and meet those cultures where they are. His approach also included assigning his students novels by French authors and philosophers. In fact, he may be the only French teacher in the world who assigned Camus and Satre to high school students. In hindsight, I'm not sure that No Exit and The Stranger were the best choices for 16-year-old kids worried about finding a date for the prom. That may have been a little too much existential angst for them at that age but he assigned them nonetheless. The one book that our Dad insisted every one of his students read and actually memorize parts of is his favorite book, the children's story, Le Petit Prince. Over the years, as I've grown to be friends with many of my Dad's former students, a number of them after inquiring about my Dad have spontaneously quoted a passage from that book to me: ``Il faux exiger de chacun, ce que chacun peut donner,'' which loosely translated means ``Ask of a person only that which they can give.'' I think anyone who had our Dad as a student would agree that he certainly gave all of himself to teaching. He seemed to believe that just about anyone can instruct students on conjugating verbs or using the proper accent but it takes something extra, something special, to actually inspire them. He managed to do that--to inspire them--and perhaps the best evidence of that are the postcards and letters he continues to receive from former students that have traveled all around the world. A few have even become foreign language teachers which is something that I know gives him a tremendous amount of pride and satisfaction. When the time came for our Dad to move from teaching into administration, I think we were all more than a little surprised because he never seemed to be inclined in that direction. Believe it or not, he is not an especially ambitious person. But, sometimes circumstances tap you on the shoulder and life pulls you in a certain direction. Or, to put it another way, the cream has a way of always rising to the top. As a principal, quadrant manager and superintendent, our Dad brought the same level of energy and passion he displayed in the classroom to the often-times dispassionate duties that those positions require. And, just as he used to bring his students into our home, he also brought the demands of those positions home with him. Particularly as a principal, I distinctly remember him being completely exasperated by his inability to help one child who was trapped in a terrible home situation. But he never gave up on that kid or any other for that matter. With an unrivaled work ethic he never stopped trying to find new and innovative ways to help children, improve the curriculum and expand and enrich the opportunities available to students. He resisted mediocrity at every turn and categorically rejected the suggestion that a student's academic success is based largely on socio-economic status or ethnicity. He rejected that idea because he knew otherwise. He had been a teacher and some of his best students were the children of immigrants and themselves first-generation Americans. The real difference, he would often tell us at the dinner table, is expectations. As a teacher and as an administrator he constantly tried to raise them and that, more than anything else will likely be remembered as the hallmark of his career. I know it will not come as a surprise to any of you that in addition to being very dedicated to his job, our Dad has always been very devoted to his family. So much so, that we can scarcely remember a soccer game, a dance recital or an academic awards banquet, not mine by the way, where our Dad was not present. You could usually find him in the last row of the bleachers, or up against the wall in the back of the auditorium or along the fence at the soccer field but he was always there--a constant reassuring presence. Many years ago a friend of mine spotted my Dad at some event that one of my siblings was participating in and remarked to me without realizing how profound a statement he was making, `` Boy, your Dad is always where he is supposed to be.'' And, it struck me then as it does tonight as being so absolutely true. Our Dad is always where he is supposed to be. Growing up, our Dad encouraged each of us to seek our own interests and he was content to let us find our way without trying to live his own life vicariously through us. He was always just one step behind, providing a nudge when needed, or sometimes a whisper and less frequently a bark but always right there. In fact, growing up there were two things we knew were important to our Dad without him ever having told us: (1) that we were expected to be educated; and (2) that we vote democrat. I think he thought that if we did the first, the second would follow naturally. When the time came for us to apply to college, our parents made it abundantly clear that it was our job to get in to the best school we could and their obligation to pay for it. We would be expected to help but it was made plain to us that we would never be denied an opportunity based on the cost of tuition. For as far as we wanted to go, for as long as it took and whatever it took, they would be there to help us. And to that end, they did what many parents in this room have done. My Mom took a second job at the walk-in medical center in downtown Clinton and our Dad joined many of his fellow administrators, some of whom are here tonight, working nights and weekends as a security guard for the William Polack Security Agency, an elite, top-flight force of highly-trained professionals. Sometimes, our Dad even worked a third part-time job tutoring inmates at MCI-Shirley which was another job he loved. You see, for our Dad, supporting education was not just a bumper sticker you slapped on the back of your car, or a slogan you repeated at PTA meetings. For him, education has been more than a career; it has been a way of life. For all of our Dad's native intelligence and his worldly sophistication, he is really a very simple man with very simple tastes. He likes a cheap glass of wine and a good glass of scotch. He likes an all-you-can-eat buffet or any restaurant he has a coupon to. He likes a good long walk, preferably by the ocean. He likes short sermons at Mass. He likes 60 Minutes on Sunday nights. He likes a good book, the Boston Sunday Globe and anything Tom Farragher writes he believes is the best thing he has ever read. He also likes his so-called off-site construction meetings with Phil Bailey and pizza with Carol Ann Hamilton and Joan Strang. And, he likes family vacations or any other occasion, with the possible exception of tonight, that brings his children and grandchildren together. In addition to these simple tastes, there are a handful of institutions that our Dad holds dear and the only one that rivals his affection for the Clinton Public Schools is his alma-matter, the University of Notre Dame, which he shares with both of his brothers, two of his four children, and his friend and former colleague Pat Burke. About 12 years ago, my older brother came across a letter to the editor in the Notre Dame Student Newspaper, The Observer, which he shared with me. I saved it because it is as near-perfect description of our Dad that I have ever seen reduced to writing and if you'll indulge me a little bit longer, I'd like to read a portion of it for you now. ``A man is someone who cares passionately about things that need caring about. Someone who refuses to accept things that are wrong, even though accepting them would be easier. Someone who yells sometimes and fights sometimes and cries sometimes and is not afraid to do any of those things when he feels a need to. Someone who doesn't always win or even come close, but who know instinctively that trying is what counts. Someone Notre Dame is proud of.'' For fully thirty-five years, our Dad has tried and succeeded in making the students in his care and the schools systems in his charge the very best they could be. And so, by that standard, or any other for that matter, I think tonight it is fair to say: Dad, the University of Notre Dame is proud of you. Your profession is proud of you. The Town of Clinton is proud of you. And, most especially, your children are, as we have always been, so very proud of you.