Providing for Consideration of H.R. 2397, Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2014; and Providing for Consideration of H.R. 2610, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2014

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, we're here today to consider one rule for two appropriations bills, the Department of Defense appropriations bill and the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill.

While the T-HUD bill will be considered under an open rule--that is, if it's ever considered in this House at all--the Defense appropriations bill is another story. That's because the FY 2014 Defense appropriations bill is not an open rule. This bill is structured. Many good amendments were denied. The Rules Committee cherry-picked amendments that could be considered and prevented many germane amendments from being considered today. In fact, Mr. Speaker, last month, Speaker Boehner touted Republican use of open rules for appropriations bills. But now, just 1 month later, this Tea Party-run House is limiting debate on the Defense bill just to avoid taking some tough votes.

My colleague said that they made exceptions and limited amendments with regard to Egypt, Syria, and the NSA. Those were the only three areas, he said, that they purposefully made exceptions. Well, those are the three most important areas before us. Those are the things that our constituents want to make sure that we are debating and deliberating on.

Let me note another area where this structured rule inhibits having a robust debate on a critical issue, namely, the debate on the need for greater transparency and oversight of NSA collection of telephone and email records from people who are not under any suspicion or investigation whatsoever.

I'm grateful that a couple of amendments were made in order on this subject, but they were only given 15 minutes of debate apiece. That's it. This is a pretty big issue. We all want to provide our law enforcement officials with the tools they need to safeguard our country from potential terrorist attacks. But we also want to protect the basic rights and liberties guaranteed to all Americans from unwanted and unwarranted searches and invasion of privacy by government agencies.

Issues of transparency, accountability and oversight are critical duties and responsibilities not just of the executive branch but of Congress. Who is providing the necessary oversight of all of this massive data collection? Who is watching the watchers? Isn't it time for Congress to take a serious review of how the law is being implemented, how it is touching and affecting all Americans, and whether any of those laws and their implementation now require changes? I, for one, welcome such a debate, which I hope will occur at least in a limited fashion on the amendments that were made in order under this structured rule.

I believe a far better debate would have occurred under an open rule, where all Members could have voiced their concerns and outlined proposals for change. Regrettably, this will not happen under the time restrictions of this structured rule.

Turning to the T-HUD appropriations bill, I am disappointed and concerned with the committee's proposed funding level for the Community Development Block Grant program, known as CDBG. The bill cuts CDBG from $3.071 billion in FY13 to $1.637 billion in FY14, almost halving the program and bringing it to a historic low in terms of funding. CDBG funds are working in neighborhoods throughout our country, and this proposed reduction will negatively impact local economies and economic development projects all over the country.

Mr. Speaker, I will insert into the Record a bipartisan letter signed by 101 Members of the House of Representatives expressing support for effective CDBG funding levels. If this bill is actually considered by this body before the end of the fiscal year, I hope there will be an attempt to restore funding for this critically important program.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just remind my colleagues again why these are tough budgetary times. This Defense bill is being treated differently than appropriations bills that actually fund needs right here in the United States.

I would remind my colleagues that national defense also includes what happens here in the United States--whether people have housing, whether people have food, whether or not people have good health care, whether or not we have good roads and good bridges, whether or not we have jobs. All these domestic needs are being ignored. In fact, they are being obliterated by the Republican numbers in the appropriations process.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to build on something that Mr. Welch of Vermont said here on the House floor about the lack of debate on Syria. As somebody who was here when the Afghanistan war began and when the Iraq war began, I believe that both of those wars were unnecessary. We ended up getting Osama bin Laden not in Afghanistan with 100,000 troops, but with a small well-trained group of Navy SEALs in Pakistan.

This notion that somehow our strength can only be measured by the number of troops we have overseas or the number of weapons that we send overseas I think is just crazy. I think the amount that we have spent on these wars that have been added to our debt have weakened our security. I think the fact that we have lost so many incredibly brave men and women to these conflicts is a tragedy.

What the gentleman from Vermont raised was the issue that I think is on a lot of our constituents' minds, and that is what is going to happen in Syria. The real problem with this rule, Mr. Speaker, can be seen in the debate surrounding Syria. There is a real split when it comes to Syria. There are some who don't believe we should get involved at all; and there are others, like Senator McCain, leading the Republicans over in the Senate, saying we ought to do more, we ought to get more involved in Syria.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source