Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Mr. Speaker, if I can just read the first line of that column where Professor Shogan says, ``The debate over how Congress should reconstitute itself in the wake of a devastating terrorist attack has evolved into a partisan melee with experts, staffers, and elected officials talking past one another.'' I think, Mr. Speaker, what people on our side are concerned about is that the professor is absolutely right, that this issue has kind of become more partisan than it should be. In fact, it should not be partisan at all and this really is a time to kind of take a couple of steps backwards and to do the necessary deliberation and consideration that something this important requires. That is what we are asking for here. I think it is hard for the other side to justify that this has been a fair and bipartisan process and that they are taking this issue seriously when the main committee of jurisdiction has not even held a hearing on this particular bill in the 108th Congress. So what we are asking for is that this serious issue be taken seriously, that the necessary deliberation and the necessary consideration be followed as we move forward with this legislation. So with that, I would urge a ``no'' vote on the rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

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. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert an article that was written by Professor Colleen Shogan, who is a professor of Government and Politics at George Mason University. This article appeared in yesterday's Roll Call.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, today the House is debating the continuity of Congress. We are attempting to answer important questions: What happens to the House of Representatives if a majority of Members are killed or incapacitated in a catastrophic event like a terrorist attack? How does the House continue to function if there are not enough Members to constitute a quorum? These are not easy questions to answer. Indeed, they are not easy questions to talk about or to think about. Nobody wants to consider what happens if they and their friends and colleagues are attacked, but they are questions that we must face head on. And they are questions that elicit strong policy answers from those who have taken the time to study the issue. Some believe that amending the Constitution is the proper course. Others disagree, arguing for statutory fixes. But it seems to me that we could all agree on one thing: that these issues should transcend partisan politics. But not in this House. The Republican leadership cannot seem to help itself when it comes to the way it manages this body. They seem to be addicted to stifling debate, to muzzling Members of both parties, to partisan rules and lousy procedures, and to shredding the committee process. And so I rise today in strong opposition to this rule because the Republican leadership has once again taken a nonpartisan issue and dragged it into the partisan mud. Instead of working side by side with Democrats, the Republican leadership ignored the proper procedures of this body and rushed this constitutional amendment to the floor for a vote. This rule makes in order 90 minutes of general debate. That is 90 minutes more than the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), held in hearings on this amendment. Let me say that again. In the 108th Congress, there has not been one single hearing about a constitutional amendment on this issue. The chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary found time to write a very eloquent op ed piece in this morning's Washington Post, but apparently could not find the time to hold a hearing. The chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary and the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), hold strong views that the Constitution should not be amended. They may be right. However, I honestly do not believe that this whole issue has been given the serious and thoughtful attention and consideration that it deserves. There is no reason to bring this bill to the floor without hearing from academics, lawyers, Members of Congress, Senators, former and current administration officials, liberal, moderate, and conservative interest groups. Many of those experts served right here as Members of Congress as members of the Committee on the Judiciary. Why are we not taking advantage of their expertise? I am especially puzzled by this unnecessarily partisan process given that this is not a hot topic in the elections. I think it is safe to say that not a single congressional race this year will turn on whether the candidate supports constitutional or statutory remedies for the continuity of Congress. This is not what people are talking about around their kitchen tables. But it is important, and it should be handled correctly. This rule makes in order only the constitutional amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird). Yet last night, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) came before the Committee on Rules with two proposals. Several members of the Committee on Rules had questions and sought clarification on certain aspects of his ideas. It was a very, very interesting conversation. But it was not a discussion that should have taken place in the Committee on Rules less than a day before the House votes on a constitutional amendment. It should have taken place at a hearing of the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. Speaker, the American people expect and they deserve a House that works together when this country faces adversity. After the September 11 attacks, the Speaker of the House and the minority leader brought our two parties together for a bipartisan caucus to discuss what happened and to discuss the next steps. During those next days and weeks we were not two parties, we were one country. I believe that we need to once again join together in a bipartisan caucus to talk about this important issue and decide on the steps that we need to take, to bring together experts from across the political spectrum and to do what is right for the country and for the Congress. Mr. Speaker, this constitutional amendment was brought before the House in the wrong way. This rule is the wrong rule, and I would urge my colleagues to reject it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules that what today is supposed to be bipartisan is more than just giving the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) his day on the floor. Last night, in the Committee on Rules, the chairman said this is a very serious issue. He mentioned on the floor today that it is a very controversial issue. It would seem to me that if it is a serious issue and a controversial issue and if we are going to have a process here that both sides can respect, then at a minimum the committee of jurisdiction, which is the Committee on the Judiciary, should have held a hearing on it. We reported this measure out on a very partisan vote in the Committee on the Judiciary without a hearing on the proposal that we are debating here today. The chairman of the Committee on Rules says that we are working in a bipartisan way. How can this be a bipartisan process when the committee of jurisdiction, the Committee on the Judiciary, has not held a hearing? I would say that I read the chairman's op-ed piece today in the Washington Post, and I agree with much of what he is saying, but I have a lot of questions. There were members of the Committee on Rules last night who had a lot of questions. There are Members who are not on the floor right now who have a lot of questions. I think that it is important that we have a process that has some integrity to it, a process where people can have their questions raised and answered; and this is not the process. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, we have a whole bunch of speakers here on our side. Could maybe your side yield the distinguished chairman some time?

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), and urge a no vote on the rule.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Before I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas, I should just point out to the chairman of the Committee on Rules that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) tried twice during the markup to postpone consideration of the gentleman from Washington's (Mr. Baird) amendment for a couple of weeks to allow for there to be an opportunity for Members to offer amendments and there to be a hearing, and the motion was tabled. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just say to kind of clarify what the concerns are on this side of the aisle. This is an important issue. This is an important topic that we are talking about. I think all of us can agree on that. This is supposed to be a deliberative body where we deliberate, and that means hold hearings where we have people who are experts on some of these issues be able to talk and testify and offer their input. I am not sure whether it is a good idea to amend the Constitution, but I have to tell my colleagues I am appalled by this process that we would bring an issue like this to the House floor and to ask Members to vote up or down on it without holding hearings in the committee of jurisdiction. That is not the way this place is supposed to work. The people of this country, the people of this institution deserve a lot better. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am honored today to pay tribute to William ``Doc'' Samko, in honor of his 37 wonderful years of service to Worcester Academy--my alma mater. Doc has been the athletic trainer at Worcester Academy since the 1966-67 school year. Throughout his tenure he has been a teacher, a healer, a mentor and a friend to thousands of young students. He has guided them through injury and defeat with grace and humor. I myself played football at Worcester Academy, although I never really got enough playing time to risk injury. I like to say I played ``left bench.'' It's probably for the best. But I knew that if I ever got hurt, Doc Samko would be there to help. Before his time at Worcester Academy, Doc worked at Holy Cross College in Worcester, where he helped the likes of Bob Cousy, Tommy Heinsohn, and other greats of that era. A pioneer in his field, Doc has been inducted into the Worcester Academy Hall of Fame and the National Athletic Trainers Hall of Fame. Now in his 80's, he's still going strong. On May 22, Doc will be honored at a dinner in the Worcester Academy gymnasium, where he will be surrounded by family, friends, and admirers. I only hope the gym is big enough, because a lot of people admire and love Doc Samko. Mr. Speaker, I know the entire House of Representatives joins me in paying tribute to Doc Samko, and we wish him and his family all the best in the years to come.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just would remind the gentleman again that yesterday he and a majority, almost every single member of the Republican Party, voted for a budget to increase the national debt to over $8 trillion. That is not something I think anyone can be proud of. Mr. Speaker, I include for printing in the Congressional Record an editorial that appeared in the Washington Post, entitled ``Leave No Rich Child Behind'' that refers to the bill we are talking about here today. [From the Washington Post, May 19, 2004] Leave No Rich Child Behind The House Representatives plans to take up a bill this week that would provide new tax breaks to families earning as much as $309,000, while doing next to nothing for those at the low end of the income scale. The bill, which could come up as early as today, is the most egregious part of a House tax- cutting spree that altogether would add more than $500 billion to the deficit over the next 10 years, according to estimates by the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center. The House would not only make permanent the $1,000-per- child tax credit enacted as part of the 2001 tax cut but would dramatically increase the income limits for eligibility. Currently, married families with incomes of up to $110,000 receive the full credit; the bill would more than double the income ceiling, to $250,000. Under existing law, families with two children and incomes up to $149,000 receive a partial tax credit; the bill would make that partial credit available to families with two children and income of between $250,000 and $289,000; families with three children would be entitled to the partial credit up to an income of $309,000. This is unnecessary, misguided and irresponsible. Families at that income level have already enjoyed significant benefits from the recent tax cuts; they don't need an extra subsidy to help support their children. While tax cut proponents argue that lowering marginal tax rates or cutting dividend and capital gains taxes helps promote economic growth, there is no such claim to be made for the child tax credit. And the increase in the income ceiling would cost $69 billion through 2014, $87 billion if you count increased interest payments on the extra debt. House Republicans have the gall to propose all this--and many House Democrats don't seem to have the spine to oppose it--while providing almost no extra help for the poorest families. Currently, low-income families who earn more than $10,750 are eligible for a small refundable tax credit. (These are families that pay payroll taxes but don't earn enough to be subject to paying income taxes, so they get a check back from the government.) For example, a married family with two children and an income of $12,000 gets $125 per child. The House bill would speed up by one year a planned increase in the size of this credit, giving low- income families a one-time average benefit of $150 per child. This remedies--belatedly--last year's mean-spirited omission of these families from the accelerated increase in the child tax credit enjoyed by higher-income taxpayers. The cost of this meager improvement: $1.8 billion. For families earning less than $10,750, however, the House bill would do nothing. Thus, a family with a parent working full-time at the minimum wage ($10,300) would get no benefit from the bill. A better-off but still low-income family with two children would get a one-time $300 average tax break ($150 per child). By contrast, two-child families with earnings between $150,000 and $250,000 get $22,000 in extra tax breaks over the next 10 years ($1,000 per child per year). This is bad social policy, bad tax policy, and bad fiscal policy. You'd think they'd be embarrassed, but they're not. Let me close, Mr. Speaker, by saying I hope that my colleagues will look seriously at the Rangel substitute. We provide a child tax credit, but we pay for it. I think that is the fiscally responsible thing to do. We are now experiencing record deficits. We are going into debt. We are passing on to our kids an incredible bill. We need to be more responsible in this House. I would urge my colleagues to support the Democratic substitute. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to respond to the gentleman from California, if I may. I very rarely agree with anything he says. I do agree with one thing he said and that is, the American people are not stupid. I would just like to say to him that the American people can add and they can subtract. The unpaid-for tax cuts, many of them for the wealthiest people of this country, that his party has championed during this last month have added $1.2 trillion to the Federal debt that is already nearly $7.2 trillion. That is an addition of $4,000 to each American's share of the Federal debt. Each citizen's share of the debt would be now, with all these tax cuts that they have passed that are not paid for, $28,479. Most of us on this side of the aisle have absolutely no problem with the marriage penalty tax relief provisions and most of the child tax credits that are being discussed here today. What we do have a problem with is passing the bill on to our kids and our grandkids. That is fiscally irresponsible. They should listen to one of the great leaders of their own party, Senator John McCain of Arizona, who said that the Republican Party used to be the party of fiscal responsibility. It used to be the party that would want to pay as you go. That is no longer the case. This is the most fiscally irresponsible Congress in the history of our country. And so to the gentleman who spoke earlier, I would say my problem is not so much that we should not provide tax relief to middle-income families; my problem is that you are not paying for it and you are passing the bill on to my kids and my grandkids, and that is not right. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. announcement by the speaker pro tempore

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to answer the gentleman's question. He asked, what did we give the American people when the Democrats had the White House and the House of Representatives and the United States Senate. We gave the American people one of the largest surpluses in the history of this country. What have they given the American people now that they control the White House, House and the Senate? They have given the American people the largest deficit in the history of this country. There is a clear difference.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this morning we learned U.S. military personnel and Iraqi police raided the home and party headquarters of Iraqi Governing Council member Ahmed Chalabi. I am not surprised. Chalabi's past is riddled with allegations and convictions for fraud and corruption. That he may now be under investigation in Iraq for corruption or other crimes is hardly unexpected. Chalabi has always been a favorite at the Pentagon, even though the State Department sees him as divisive and untrustworthy. Under the Iraqi Liberation Act, the Pentagon has fed him a steady stream of money in return for information. It was Chalabi who was the principal source for the false intelligence about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. When Saddam fell and the U.S. flew Chalabi and his cronies to Iraq to take up positions of power, it was he who championed the plan to rid Iraq of all Baath Party influence, including civil servants, a policy that angered many an Iraqi and deprived the coalition of experienced workers. Mr. Speaker, it is time to distance ourselves from this man once and for all. Cut off his money. The taxpayers deserve a refund.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the previous speaker that we do not have any problem, in fact we support and we have been a champion of the child tax credit. What we have a problem with is the fact that they do not want to pay for it. What we have a problem with is the other side of the aisle is adding $228 billion to the debt that is being passed on to our kids. Mr. Speaker, how does the other side go home and say I am helping children and families of our country when essentially they are just adding to the national debt? That is irresponsible. This is the most fiscally irresponsible Congress, this is the most fiscally irresponsible President in the history of our country. It is great to get up and talk about tax relief, it is great to get up and do all of these wonderful press releases, but when it is not paid for, it is just added to the debt. That is wrong. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government's financial house is in disarray. In 2001, the Federal Government had historic surpluses in the trillions of dollars. In 2004, those surpluses are gone, replaced by huge deficits. Last night, by a very small margin, the House of Representatives passed a budget with a deficit of $367 billion. Let me repeat that: a deficit of $367 billion. The hole we are in keeps getting deeper and deeper and deeper. Today, we are considering a measure to make permanent child tax credits. The question is not whether hard-working parents should have tax credits for each of their children. We all agree that they should. The question is whether we are going to do it in a responsible way. Are we going to target tax relief to the middle-class families who need it most, or are we going to give yet another tax break to people who do not need it? Are we going to add to the mounting Federal debt, or are we going to do the right thing and pay for these tax breaks? Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, once again the Republicans have chosen to extend tax cuts for the wealthy without paying for them. As the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) pointed out earlier today, the Republican leadership is giving tax breaks to Members of Congress on the same day that they are freezing education funding for military children and freezing the most important military housing improvement program in American history. It is outrageous. The priorities are all messed up. The Republican scheme would charge the entire $228 billion cost to the country's maxed-out credit card to be paid for by the very children the Republicans claim they want to help. By contrast, the Democratic alternative pays for the entire cost of the child tax credits and is targeted to the people who need it most. Mr. Speaker, more should be done to help the children and families who are struggling to get by. H.R. 4359 does not focus the help where it is needed most. The lowest-income families, earning less than $10,750, are not helped by this bill at all. In fact, about 70 percent of the tax credits in this bill go to tax filers in the top 20 percent of income earners. This means that a family with a parent working full time for minimum wage, and that is $10,300 a year, would get absolutely nothing from this bill. But two-child families earning up to $250,000 would get an extra $20,000 in tax breaks over the next 10 years. Advocates for children and fiscal responsibility alike have expressed their outrage that H.R. 4359 gives the majority of the benefit to wealthier families and adds $228 billion to the national debt that children will have to pay for. The Washington Post called this bill ``bad social policy, bad tax policy and bad fiscal policy.'' Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject the Republican bill and support the Rangel substitute so working families get the help they need and so their children will not be the ones stuck with the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes, and I want to thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on the Budget. (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)