Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the chairman of the Democratic Caucus. (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Again I would urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will be urging Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question in order to expose a part of this budget resolution that my Republican colleagues would rather not talk about. When Members vote for this budget conference report, they will be voting to increase the statutory debt limit by almost $700 billion for the next fiscal year. An uncomfortable fact they would rather not talk about today is that this budget raises our national statutory debt limit to the highest level in our history, to more than $8 trillion. This comes on top of the fact that last year Republicans used the budget resolution to slip through a $984 billion increase in the debt limit, the largest increase in the debt limit in the history of the United States of America without an up-or-down vote in this House. Mr. Speaker, there is an honest disagreement in this House over our Nation's fiscal priorities. Many of us think that with large deficits and the growing costs of the war in Iraq, we need to rethink our budget priorities and figure out how to make our revenues match up better with our spending needs. My Republican colleagues do not seem to think there is a problem. They think it is just fine to continue on with the spending and the tax policies that have led us into this current fiscal mess. They seem to think it is fine to keep building up our national debt and leave it to our kids and our grandkids to figure out how to pay for it. I would say to my Republican colleagues, if they honestly believe that tax cuts with borrowed money is good economic policy, they should be willing to stand up in this House and vote to increase the national debt to pay for their tax cuts instead of relying on undercover parliamentary tricks. Republicans used to criticize Democrats for using House rules to slip through increases in the national debt without a separate vote. That is exactly what they are doing here today. If they believe in the fiscal policies that are sending the national debt through the roof, they should be willing to stand up on the floor of this House and vote for them. I want to emphasize that a ``no'' vote will not stop the House from taking up the budget conference report. All it does is require Republicans to take responsibility for a fiscal policy that by the end of this year will cost our kids and our grandkids $8 trillion. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, to insert the text of the amendment immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, since this mammoth budget was made available to Members of this House only a couple of hours ago, it is difficult to know exactly what goodies and gimmicks are hidden inside of it. We know enough, however, to know that this Republican budget is bad for the economy, bad for American working families, and bad for the future of this country. Two months ago, the Republican leadership proposed a budget resolution that had tax cuts that were not paid for and slashed Medicaid by $2 billion. On top of that, that budget did not include any legitimate plan for bringing our country out of the skyrocketing, record deficits, deficits made worse by the policies of this President and this Republican Congress. That budget resolution passed by only three votes. And now the Republican leadership wants the House to consider a conference report that they claim is very similar to that bill. Mr. Speaker, that budget was bad then and it is bad now. This conference report continues the Republican pattern of fiscal mismanagement. Contrary to their claims, this conference report is only a 1-year budget. Now, we used to consider 10-year budgets so we could fully assess the consequences of our fiscal actions. Then the Republican leadership changed the budgets to 5 years, so they could better mask the long-term impact of their misguided policies. And now we are considering 1-year budgets. What is next, 6-month budgets? 1-week budgets? How about a budget for the next 5 minutes? This is the worst kind of shell game. It is a gimmick, a smoke screen that the American people will see right through. It is time the Republicans in this body face the facts. They squandered a $6 trillion surplus, turning it into an almost $3 trillion deficit. This is the most fiscally irresponsible congressional leadership and administration in the history of the United States of America, and now they are seeking to make it worse by continuing to extend tax cuts that are not paid for. Now, my grandfather always told me, you cannot dig your way out of a hole, and that is exactly where we are today, in a fiscal hole. Extending these various tax cuts without paying for them may make for good press releases, but it is lousy fiscal policy. And I do not know if my colleagues are aware of the inclusion of the Hastert Rule in this conference report. The Hastert Rule allows this body to raise the debt limit, also known as the national debt, without a direct vote by the Members of this House. In other words, Mr. Speaker, we busted our credit limit and we are giving ourselves an increase without even having the decency of taking responsibility for it. And guess what? We are sending the bill to our kids and our grandkids. That is wrong. It is important for my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to know that a vote for this conference report is a vote to increase the debt. A ``yes'' vote will raise the debt over the $8 trillion level for the first time in American history. Now, I hope Members will think long and hard about what kind of future we are creating for our kids and grandkids. I believe that we have a responsibility to vote up or down on increasing the debt. Burying this debt increase in the conference report shirks the responsibility of the Members of this House. You know, my Republican friends always complain about protectionists, but this conference report is one of the most protectionist things I have ever seen. But instead of protecting jobs, it protects politically vulnerable Republicans from being forced to vote up or down on increasing the national debt. It protects the Republicans from having to pay for their tax cuts. And one other thing: As if the policies in this conference report were not bad enough, the Republican leadership added a provision to this rule that closes the conference on the fiscal year 2004 Labor, HHS, and Education bill. My colleagues and many Americans may be asking themselves, is that bill not already law? Well, the truth is, the provisions that make up the FY 2004 Labor, HHS, and Education appropriations bill were included in the omnibus appropriations bill signed into law early this year. But the conference report on that bill was never formally closed. Under the rules of the House, Members of the majority and minority can still offer motions to instruct. My good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), has attempted to do just that several times over the past couple of weeks. Now, adoption of this rule today will formally close the conference, meaning that no Member can instruct conferees on any issue. The motions to instruct by the gentleman from California have focused on the administration's overtime policies. It is clear that the Republican leadership is scared to death of talking about the Bush administration's misguided plan to take away overtime pay for millions of American workers. The purpose of this section in the rule is to muzzle the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and any other Members who attempt to bring this important issue to the attention of the House and to the American people. Why is this leadership so afraid of open and fair debate? Mr. Speaker, this is a bad rule and it is a bad conference report, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my appreciation to Chairman Hunter and Ranking Member Skelton for their leadership in bringing this bill before the House. I honor after dedication to our uniformed men and women, and their families and dependents. I have often criticized our military budget. There is simply too much waste, too much duplication, too much fraud and abuse. We fund weapon systems that don't work, or contribute to a new arms race, or both. On these matters, I will support the amendment to be offered later today by Congresswoman Tauscher and my Massachusetts colleague Congressman Markey. I believe, however, that this bill makes important contributions to protecting our troops in the field and to the welfare of their families. H.R. 4200 fixes the long-standing problem of the Social Security offset for our military retirees and their survivors, which is a top priority for my constituents. The Survivor Benefit Plan currently penalizes over 225,000 aging survivors, mostly widows of our nation's veterans. These survivors are forced to give up more than one-third of their retirement benefit when they become eligible for Social Security. Mr. Chairman, this is simply wrong. Bipartisan legislation to fix the Survivor Benefit Plan was introduced over a year ago by our colleague form Florida, Congressman Miller, and despite having 336 cosponsors, was left to languish. So, I salute the Committee for ending this injustice by providing a five-year phase-out of the Social Security offset. I strongly support the increased funding for Armored Humvees, to outfit currently deployed Humvees with ballistic armor, and for Interceptor body armor. This bill also reimburses military personnel who had to purchase their own body armor because the Pentagon failed to provide them with protection. I also want to thank the Committee for including an initiative for income replacement payments to Reservists who experience a reduction to income from their civilian life. I believe this is an important step that should be extended to National Guard members, especially for those who have experienced extended deployments. The financial stress faced by the families of our active-duty Reserve and Guard is well-known to every Member of this House, and I believe we must respond in a far more comprehensive way if we expect to honor their service and sacrifice, retain current personnel, and attract future candidates for service. I am deeply disappointed that the Republican majority will not allow Congressman Lantos to offer his amendment, which would help equalize the difference in income for federal workers who have been called to active-duty in the Reserves. I am an original cosponsor on Congressional Lantos' legislation that would provide such funding, and I am very proud that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has already implemented such a program for state employees who have been activated. I simply do not see why we cannot do the same for federal employees nation-wide. I also want to thank the Committee for its strong bipartisan support for keeping in place the limits on the number of U.S. military troops and contractors in Colombia, and I thank our colleagues from Mississippi, Gene Taylor, for his leadership on this issue. Mr. Chairman, I want to be clear: Even though I support this bill I have serious concerns about U.S. Policy in Iraq and Afghanistan. This bill cannot be a blank check. Our policies are in serious trouble in both countries. The Bush Administration must, I believe, change course if we are to have any hope of brining security, stability and representative government to the region.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin). (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee). (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), a member of the Committee on Rules and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, all Americans have been horrified by the pictures and accounts of inhumane treatment of detainees in Iraq. The conduct in those pictures is absolutely intolerable, and the United States must take swift and decisive action to investigation and resolve this terrible incident and make sure it never happens again. While this resolution calls on the Secretary of the Army to conduct a full and thorough investigation into the allegations of mistreatment, take corrective action against those responsible and ensure that it never happens again, I believe Congress must also do its job and conduct its own investigation. Mr. Speaker, Congress was never notified about the problems at Abu Ghraib prison, even though the Department of Defense had a report outlining the conditions there 3 months ago. As a partner in the War on Terror, Congress absolutely has not only the right, but the responsibility to investigate what went wrong up and down the chain of command. So today, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule allowing for the consideration of an amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) affirming the need for bipartisan congressional investigations into these allegations are of abuse, including those by U.S. civilian contractor personnel or other U.S. civilians, and into the chain of command and other deficiencies that contributed to such abuse. Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker, voting ``no'' on the previous question will not prevent this House from voting on the underlying resolution, it will simply allow for the consideration of the Skelton amendment and allow the House to conduct a bipartisan investigation. It will allow us to do our job, what the people we represent expect us to do. Congress is a full partner in the war on terror. We need to do our job. We cannot call for accountability by others and then shirk our own responsibility. Let us do our part to resolve this awful situation and restore confidence and trust in our Nation and in our military. I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I include the following material for the Record. [From the New York Times, May 6, 2004] Restoring Our Honor (By Thomas L. Friedman) We are in danger of losing something much more important that just the war in Iraq. We are in danger of losing America as an instrument of moral authority and inspiration in the world. I have never known a time in my life when America and its president were more hated around the world than today. I was just in Japan, and even young Japanese dislike us. It's no wonder that so many Americans are obsessed with the finale of the sitcom ``Friends'' right now. They're the only friends we have, and even they're leaving. This administration needs to undertake a total overhaul of its Iraq policy; otherwise, it is courting a total disaster for us all. That overhaul needs to begin with President Bush firing Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld--today, not tomorrow or next month, today. What happened in Abu Ghraib prison was, at best, a fundamental breakdown in the chain of command under Mr. Rumsfeld's authority, or, at worst, part of a deliberate policy somewhere in the military-intelligence command of sexually humiliating prisoners to soften them up for interrogation, a policy that ran amok. Either way, the secretary of defense is ultimately responsible, and if we are going to rebuild our credibility as instruments of humanitarian values, the rule of law and democratization, in Iraq or elsewhere, Mr. Bush must hold his own defense secretary accountable. Words matter, but deeds matter more. If the Pentagon leadership ran any U.S. company with the kind of abysmal planning in this war, it would have been fired by shareholders months ago. I know that tough interrogations are vital in a war against a merciless enemy, but outright torture, or this sexual- humiliation-for-entertainment, is abhorrent. I also know the sort of abuse that went on in Abu Ghraib prison goes on in prisons all over the Arab world every day, as it did under Saddam--without the Arab League or Al Jazeera ever saying a word about it. I know they are shameful hypocrites, but I want my country to behave better--not only because it is America, but also because the war on terrorism is a war of ideas, and to have any chance of winning we must maintain the credibility of our ideas. We were hit on 9/11 by people who believed hateful ideas-- ideas too often endorsed by some of their own spiritual leaders and educators back home. We cannot win a war of ideas against such people by ourselves. Only Arabs and Muslims can. What we could do--and this was the only legitimate rationale for this war--was try to help Iraqis create a progressive context in the heart of the Arab-Muslim world where that war of ideas could be fought out. But it is hard to partner with someone when you become so radioactive no one wants to stand next to you. We have to restore some sense of partnership with the world if we are going to successfully partner with Iraqis. Mr. Bush needs to invite to Camp David the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, the heads of both NATO and the U.N., and the leaders of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Syria. There, he needs to eat crow, apologize for his mistakes and make clear that he is turning a new page. Second, he needs to explain that we are losing in Iraq, and if we continue to lose the U.S. public will eventually demand that we quit Iraq, and it will then become Afghanistan-on- steroids, which will threaten everyone. Third, he needs to say he will be guided by the U.N. in forming the new caretaker government in Baghdad. And fourth, he needs to explain that he is ready to listen to everyone's ideas about how to expand our force in Iraq, and have it work under a new U.N. mandate, so it will have the legitimacy it needs to crush any uprisings against the interim Iraqi government and oversee elections--and then leave when appropriate. And he needs to urge them all to join in. Let's not lose sight of something--as bad as things look in Iraq it is not yet lost, for one big reason: America's aspirations for Iraq and those of the Iraqi silent majority, particularly Shiites and Kurds, are still aligned. We both want Iraqi self-rule and then free elections. That overlap of interests, however clouded, can still salvage something decent from this war--if the Bush team can finally screw up the courage to admit its failures and dramatically change course. Yes, the hour is late, but as long as there's a glimmer of hope that this Bush team will do the right thing, we must insist on it, because America's role in the world is too precious--to America and to the rest of the world--to be squandered like this.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out a couple of things. First of all, hearings are not investigations, and a lot of us feel that what we are doing here is just kind of shirking our responsibility. So a vote for the previous question means a vote against bipartisan congressional investigations. No one on the other side has yet explained to us why, in fact, a bipartisan investigation is a bad idea, why we should not be allowed to do our job. That is what we are asking for here.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott). (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

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.