Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my appreciation for the bipartisan work of the conferees, and especially for the leadership of Chairman Knollenberg and ranking member Edwards, whose long service to meeting the needs of our uniformed men and women is well known to all the Members of this House. Mr. Speaker, in June when the House passed its version of H.R. 2559, it was $41 million less than the President's request and was a $1.5 billion cut from fiscal year 2003 funding levels. The conference report, while an improvement somewhat over the House-passed bill, is still defective. While it is $199 million more than the amount requested by President Bush, it still reduces funding overall for military construction by $1.38 billion from the fiscal year 2003 levels. Mr. Speaker, we simply cannot continue selling our military men and women short. We have all seen the pictures from Fort Stewart in Georgia where our Guard and Reserves, returning wounded and sick from Iraq, are warehoused in the most miserable conditions. How can we stand on the floor of this House day after day, week after week declaring how much we support our military men and women when the funding providing for family housing in this conference report is over $400 million less than last year? That total is even worse than what it was in the original House-passed bill. How can we stand on the floor of the House day after day and week after week and say that we are engaged in a long-term struggle against a global enemy and then cut military construction funds by $600 million from last year's level? Mr. Speaker, poor facility conditions are not only unsafe, they hamper readiness, contribute to low morale and decrease troop retention. According to the Pentagon, 180,000 of the 300,000 units of military housing are substandard. Sixty-eight percent of our military facilities have deficiencies so serious that they might impede mission readiness, or they are so deteriorated that they cannot support mission requirements. The current reductions in funding for construction in these facility categories means that the rate at which buildings are renovated or replaced has increased from 83 years to 150 years. Mr. Speaker, I said it in June, and I am going to say it again. This is a national scandal. I keep hearing that since the events of September 11, we live in a changed world. I keep hearing how much we appreciate our Armed Forces, how much we appreciate their sacrifice and their service. Then why do we keep cutting and cutting and cutting the military construction appropriations bill? If we truly appreciate our military men and women, should we not give them and their families decent housing? I keep being told, just wait for next year and the funding will get better. Only it never gets any better. It just keeps getting worse. ``Next year'' should be now. This conference report, while a small improvement overall from the House-passed bill, continues to be, in the words of Chairman Knollenberg, woefully inadequate. This is what happens when our priorities are wrong. This is what happens when we deny our Nation the most basic revenue needed to adequately fund our national priorities. We rob our valiant military personnel of decent homes and facilities. We rob our veterans of their basic benefits. We cut back funding for schools and child care for military families, and we are faced with passing a bill like this. I call upon the President to include in his fiscal year 2005 budget request a budget figure that genuinely begins to meet the military construction and family housing needs of our Armed Forces. Mr. Speaker, I regret that this is the best that this Congress can do for our military and their families. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New York (Mr. McNulty) for yielding me the time and for all of his great leadership on this and so many other issues that impact military families. I also want to pay my respects and acknowledge the great leadership of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) for all he has done. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3365. Among other things, this legislation, as has been mentioned, includes several provisions that my colleague from Arizona (Mr. Renzi) and I have been working on for some time. This bill doubles the military death gratuity from $6,000 to $12,000, makes it tax exempt, and makes those changes are retroactive to September 11, 2001. Currently, the gratuity is $6,000, of which about $3,000 is subject to Federal taxes. The death gratuity is a lump-sum payment to the surviving spouse of a military servicemember killed in the line of duty or to the children of the servicemember in equal shares if there is no spouse. The purpose of the benefit is to provide cash quickly to the survivors in order to help them meet immediate needs. Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased that this bill contains a number of other provisions that were part of the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act which will benefit the brave men and women serving our Nation overseas. As we have seen just this week, the loss of life continues for our men and women in uniform serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. All of us are united in expressing our condolences for the families left behind. We are also united in wanting to ensure that the surviving families' most pressing needs are met. This bill takes a small but important step in that direction, and it is the right thing to do. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the tireless work of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), who has been an incredible leader on this whole issue, as well as the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones). They were pioneers on this issue and so many other benefits that are important to our military and their families. I also want to acknowledge the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), my good friend and colleague, the ranking member of the House Committee on Armed Services, for ensuring that language to increase the death gratuity and make it retroactive to September 11, 2001 would be included in the Defense authorization conference report. Mr. Speaker, as has been said, this bill contains other benefits for our uniformed men and women, and while I believe we need to do much, much more in order for the actions of this House to meet up with its rhetoric, nonetheless these are important steps in the right direction. They are a symbol that we respect the men and women who serve our country and who serve in our military. Mr. Speaker, this bill is long, long, long overdue, and I am pleased that both the House and the Senate have come together to send this legislation to the President's desk. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on H.R. 3365, and I call upon President Bush to sign it quickly.

Mr. McGOVERN

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 yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a vote on the previous question, and if the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule. My amendment will provide that upon adoption of this rule the enrolling Clerk is directed to make the following changes to the conference report: One, to insert the language in the Senate-passed FAA bill that would prohibit the privatization of the air traffic control system. Two, to strike the cabotage language in the bill that would allow foreign airlines to carry cargo between cities in Alaska and other cities in the United States. Three, to restore the mandatory TSA security and antiterrorism training guidelines for flight attendants that was in the House-passed version of the FAA bill. The conference report makes these important guidelines discretionary. And, four, to delete the requirement for certain communities to pay a local share for essential air service. Mr. Speaker, these changes represent the true will of the Congress with regard to this very important legislation. What has happened since H.R. 2115 first went to conference, and particularly in the past 2 days, is a travesty of our democratic system of government. It is obscene that the leadership in the House of Representatives and the Senate would turn our legislative process on its head. And it is even more obscene if we were to let that happen without any protest. This type of behavior must stop. The last time I looked, we lived in a democracy. This is supposed to be a deliberative body. We all took an oath of office when we began serving in this fine institution. It is time to live up to that oath. I want to stress that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not stop consideration of the conference report for the FAA reauthorization; rather, a ``no'' vote will allow the House to amend the rule to make the changes necessary for this conference report to truly reflect the bill that won widespread bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate. Again, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and remind them that this is the only way that we are going to prohibit the privatization of our air traffic control system. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this amendment be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous question.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on this side?

Mr. McGOVERN. I am the last speaker on our side.

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time we have remaining.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) who is the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, can I inquire how much time is remaining on both sides?

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), who is also a member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), who is a member of the committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), who is the ranking Democrat on the committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), a member of the committee. parliamentary inquiry

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule, and I urge my colleagues to vote it down. Just when I think I have seen everything, the Republican leadership comes up with a new surprise. We are seeing appropriation bills that no one can amend. We have seen huge multibillion dollar omnibus spending bills being written in secret and shoved through the House. We have seen twisted arms and broken promises. But tomorrow is Halloween and the leadership has come up with a brand-new trick: the invisible conference committee. As everyone knows, just 2 days ago, the Republican leadership, after nearly 5 weeks of delay, finally brought up a rule to send the seriously flawed FAA conference report back to the conference committee. The House, in a bipartisan way, approved that rule, with the hope that the flaws in this bill could be fixed and we could reauthorize important aviation and safety programs. Instead, the invisible conference committee did not hold a single public meeting, a violation of House rules, and did not give Democratic members any opportunity for input or amendment. In fact, Democratic members of the conference were never even notified that a conference was taking place, and they were never notified that a new report was ready until after this new conference report was filed. Now, I do not even know if Republican members of the conference committee met, or if some leadership aide or some lobbyist changed the bill himself on the back of a napkin. Mr. Speaker, this is outrageous. When we shared our concerns with the chairman of the Committee on Rules last night, he told us that he understood where we were coming from and that he would talk to his leadership about it. With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, it is not enough to feel our pain. What we are looking for is fairness. Last night, the Committee on Rules Republicans could have stood with Democrats and demanded that the House rules and procedures be respected. They had their chance to make their actions match their rhetoric. But sadly, they chose, once again, to follow their leaders, rather than follow the rules. Again, this is not an isolated incident; this is part of a continuing pattern of disregard for the rules of this House, disregard for other points of view, disregard for open debate, disregard for bipartisanship, and disregard for the American people. As I have said before, I understand that the majority has the responsibility to manage the House and that the Committee on Rules can be a tool in that effort. But under this Republican leadership, the Committee on Rules has become not a tool, but a weapon, a weapon used to smother, stifle, and suppress; a weapon used to cover up bad behavior and undermine the democratic process. These matters, Mr. Speaker, are not just ``inside baseball.'' They are matters that directly impact the American people. In this case, the conference report for the FAA bill does not just directly contradict the expressed bipartisan will of both the House and the Senate; it also jeopardizes the safety of the people we represent. The bill still allows for the privatization of air traffic control, despite the fact that both the House and the Senate voted to prohibit privatization. If this provision becomes law, it will begin the dismantling of the air traffic control system as we know it. We cannot allow our air traffic control system to be farmed out to the lowest bidder. Safety must come first, and we cannot do it on the cheap. A while back, some Republican Members claimed that they opposed privatization so strongly that they pledged to vote against the conference report. I hope they follow through with that promise today. And the bill, Mr. Speaker, still changes antiterrorism training for flight crews from mandatory to discretionary. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 directed the Transportation Security Administration to issue security training guidelines for flight crews. Section 603 of the FAA conference report guts this directive in order to give air carriers the authority to establish those training requirements at their discretion. The TSA has developed the training for Federal flight deck officers and the Federal air marshals. It only makes sense that the TSA should be responsible for developing the antiterrorism training for flight attendants so that there is a coordinated response from the entire flight crew in the event of a terrorist attack. To do anything less, Mr. Speaker, is to place special interests above passenger safety, and that is absolutely unacceptable. Mr. Speaker, this is not the way the people's House is supposed to run. What has happened with this conference report is an outrage and an insult, not only to Members of both parties, but to the people we represent. I strongly urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question and defeat the rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I have a further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, under the rules of the House, is it not true that before conference reports can be filed, that conferees must meet in formal session, and I believe this requirement can be found in clause 12 of rule XXII of the House rules?

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the House voted unanimously on Tuesday to recommit the FAA conference report to the conference committee in order to address essential safety issues relating to the plan to privatize the air traffic control system. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, is it not the case that the FAA conference report before the House was filed without any formal notice of a conference meeting to the minority and, thus, in violation of clause 12, rule XXII?