Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. We ought to have a debate in this Chamber on energy, on an energy policy, whether or not we should invest in innovation, whether or not we should invest in renewable, green, clean energy. I believe we should. My friends on the other side believe not just in the status quo, they believe in going backwards. They believe in investing, not in new technologies, but in the old technologies. But we should have that debate here. This bill really is not that debate, because this bill is a political stunt. It is not anything real. It is not anything that is going anywhere. This is just politics as usual, and that's what makes this so frustrating. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to end where I began in my opening, which is to say we're only here for a few days. I mean, I've never been part of a Congress that has worked less than this Congress and that has produced less than this Congress. Today's Roll Call has a great piece: ``Congress on Pace to be the Least Productive.'' Is that what my friends on the other side of the aisle are aspiring to--to be known as the least productive Congress? We're back for these few days. We ought to do something meaningful for the American people. We ought to be debating a jobs bill. We ought to bring the President's jobs bill to the floor. If you don't want to vote for it, vote against it, but at least we'd be doing something of substance. We ought to be extending tax breaks for middle-income Americans. Why would you leave town without making sure that middle- income Americans continue to get their tax breaks? We ought to have a responsible farm bill passed and signed into law. As we're running out of time, we're told that's probably not going to happen at all. We ought to be talking about legislation that will actually strengthen this country, that will help improve the quality of education and give more access to education for our young people. We are doing none of those things. We are squandering this opportunity. With the exception of passing a continuing resolution, which is tantamount to kicking the can down the road, these 8 days that we have been back in session have been useless. They have just been about politics. That is why the American people are so sick and tired of this Congress. That is why the approval rating is so low. They want us to come to Washington to legislate and deliberate on issues that will make a positive difference in their lives. Instead, what we have is the same old, same old--politics as usual. There has to be some common ground between Republicans and Democrats on energy. Let's find that common ground and move forward. Enough with the political stunts. It is time to start doing the people's business, and this is not it. So I urge my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to vote against this, again, restrictive rule that denies a multitude of amendments, including an amendment that would make sure the jobs that we are talking about are in America. Buy American. What is so wrong with even debating that? We're not even given that opportunity. So vote against this restrictive rule, and vote against the underlying bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me again repeat for my colleagues what Bloomberg Business Week reported, and I quote again: ``There was no evidence of any wrongdoing.'' The Washington Post reported: ``The records do not establish that anyone pressured the Energy Department to approve the Solyndra loan to benefit political contributors. I mean, you know, it's clear what's going on here. Again, bringing this bill, a bill that's going nowhere--we heard about the bridges to nowhere; this is the legislation to nowhere--I think is bad enough, but then bringing it up under a closed process. The gentleman from Massachusetts, the distinguished ranking member on the Committee on Natural Resources, had three amendments. All three of them were denied by the Rules Committee, including a Buy America provision. What a radical idea that we should make it in America and we should buy it in America. That radical amendment was denied by the Rules Committee. It's hard to believe. With that, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this structured rule. Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Republicans have brought up yet another closed process in what was supposed to be a more open and democratic House. After 2 years of broken promises, we shouldn't be surprised by this action. And we shouldn't be surprised that the Republicans are bringing up this overtly political bill just 55 days before election. H.R. 6213, the No More Solyndras Act, is just political theater. It's a bill that's going nowhere. We know the Senate won't consider it. The only thing it does is give the Republicans another talking point to use on the campaign trail. My friends on the other side of the aisle are trying to make it seem like there was a big conspiracy to inappropriately give money to Solyndra, a company that was trying to manufacture solar panels here in the United States. They claim that there was a political effort to award Solyndra funds in an improper, and possibly illegal, way. And in doing so, they are attacking a Department of Energy loan guarantee program that allows private investors to invest billions of dollars in order to create thousands of jobs here in America. The Republican response to a company that went bankrupt after receiving Federal loans--a company that was manufacturing alternative- energy products here in the United States--was to begin investigations that turned into political witch hunts. And those investigations appear to have led us to this point by consideration of this bill that purports to end the loan guarantee program altogether. Of course, the reality is that those investigations have really been used as ammunition on the campaign trail. But what the Republicans claim they're doing today and what they're really doing are two different things. They say that they're eliminating the loan guarantee program, getting rid of it completely. But what this bill really does is bar the Department of Energy from considering new applications submitted after December 31, 2011. That leaves $34 billion in the pipeline for applications for the Department of Energy loan guarantee program that were submitted before December 31, 2011. And there's no deadline on when these applications must be approved. Not only that, but most of the available loan guarantee funding is for fossil fuel and nuclear projects. That's right, Republicans are claiming to end this loan guarantee program but are still allowing it to spend tens of billions of dollars. And they are still picking and choosing the winners and losers by putting an artificial end date on the application submissions. The result will be billions more in loan guarantees for projects dealing with nuclear and fossil fuels like coal and oil and much less for wind, solar, and hydro projects. America should be about innovation, about creating new things. We're the country that put a man on the Moon. We're the country that created the car, airplane, and iPad. We should be fostering, not stifling, innovation, especially in energy like wind, solar, and hydro. Yet the Republican leadership is showing, once again, that political victory is more important than American success; that winning this election is more important than fostering American manufacturing and leadership in areas like alternative energy. Mr. Speaker, this is just another example of how this Republican leadership likes to talk the talk but not walk the walk. In this case, they say they don't like the loan guarantee program, but they want their own pet industries to be able to use it. It's another example of how their rhetoric doesn't match up with their actions. But we've seen this hypocrisy for years now. This is the same Republican Party that opposed the stimulus plan, but requested and touted funding from that same stimulus plan. In fact, Republican Members in this House have requested loan guarantees for businesses they support, including those in the nuclear industry; but they oppose this program for alternative-energy businesses that want to manufacture in America. And this is the flip-flopping that kind of makes my head spin. It's clear that my Republican friends don't let the facts get in the way of their political argument. It's a fact that this loan guarantee program is a success. For example, this loan program has ultimately supported 40 projects that help keep 60,000 people employed during this economic downturn alone. It's also a fact that the Solyndra bankruptcy represented a fraction of the entire loan guarantee program. In fact, loans and loan guarantee programs only cost taxpayers 94 cents for every $100 invested. That's a pretty good return on investment. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Republicans that Congress needs a robust oversight program that examines the executive branch and ensures that they are not overstepping their bounds. It's ironic that these Republicans are conducting a vigorous oversight plan of President Obama, but simply looked the other way when it came to the oversight of the Bush administration. But there's oversight and then there's overreach. Republicans looked into this issue, they held hearings, and conducted an investigation. And despite their claims of political manipulation, there is simply no evidence of such manipulation. Don't take my word for it. Bloomberg Business Week reported that there was ``no evidence of wrongdoing.'' And The Washington Post reported: ``The records do not establish that anyone pressured the Energy Department to approve the Solyndra loan to benefit political contractors.'' Mr. Speaker, we all know what this is. This is an election year stunt, political theater that is more appropriate for the campaign trail rather than the House of Representatives. It's a bill that supporters claim will do something that it simply will not do. And this closed process is, once again, breaking Speaker Boehner's promise of a more open House. This is a bad bill, it's a bad rule, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the bill and the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I just would like to close with one observation. We have just returned from a recess. If the rumor mill is true, we will only be in session for 8 days before the election. I'm hearing that we're going to probably give away the first week in October. And given the fact that we're here such a short time, one would think that this would be an opportunity to come together and to pass legislation that both sides can agree on--legislation that might, in fact, help stimulate economic growth; might, in fact, help put people back to work; might address some of the real challenges that the American people are facing. We don't have to agree on everything to agree on something. And that something we agree on, we ought to able to come together and pass it. Yet what we're doing during these 8 days is debating hot-button issues and bills that are going nowhere. This is a hot-button issue. They will be debating another hot-button issue later. Hot button, hot button, hot button. Never any legislation that has any real meaning in the lives of the American people. Bring the President's jobs bill to the floor. Let us have that debate. Let us be able to have a vote on whether or not we ought to invest in our economy and invest in our people. My Republican friends are squandering this opportunity. I think one thing is clear, and I think it's evident by the low esteem that the Congress is now held in by the American people: the American people want us to work on their behalf. And I understand the lust in this place for political power and winning elections and winning elections. I used to think that good government was good politics. But what we are doing here for these 8 days, with the exception of passing a continuing resolution, which is kicking the can down the road on a whole bunch of other budgetary issues, what we're doing these 8 days is nothing meaningful, nothing that matters to anybody. And I just think that that's a sad commentary on the leadership of this House. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just respond by saying when the Republicans talk about jobs, I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Let me go back to what we were talking about earlier with Mr. Markey. Mr. Markey had an amendment--let me read it. It would prevent guarantees from being granted unless the applicant certifies that at least 75 percent of materials and components required for construction, manufacturing, or operations are produced in the United States of America. Any facility at which construction, manufacturing, or operations are to be carried out must also be located in the United States of America. This amendment is not even allowed to be debated on this House floor. The Republicans in the Rules Committee said: Absolutely not. Absolutely not. So, if we're going to be talking about jobs, I mean, maybe we're here about different jobs. I'm talking about jobs in America; maybe my friends are talking about creating more jobs overseas. We need more jobs here. And if you're serious about that, why wouldn't you allow that amendment to be brought up and debated on the House floor? With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman who just spoke for pointing out how bad this rule is. He's on the other side of the aisle, and even though I disagree with the amendment he had, he ought to have been able to offer it to the floor. I hope that he will join with us in opposing this rule because I don't think his leadership will get the message if he rewards bad behavior by giving them a vote. At this point, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).

Mr. McGOVERN. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas, my friend Mr. Sessions, 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, you know what, one of the things that Speaker Boehner promised was a more open House and this would be a place where we could actually deliberate and various points of view would be heard. I want to now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and Economy whose amendment was not made in order, so he will not have an opportunity to debate it here on the floor.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I want to thank my colleague for the time, and I rise in very strong opposition to this rule and to the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, if I could create a rule that would best sum up the Republican leadership of this House over the past 2 years, this would be it, because this rule represents everything we have seen over the length of this Congress. It's a closed rule that stifles debate, and it's a rule that makes in order partisan, meaningless legislation that will do nothing--absolutely nothing--to address the real issues facing the American people. I voted against the sequester because it was a lousy idea and a terrible way to run a government. But let's be clear: This bill does not stop the sequester. It simply kicks the can down the road once again and prohibits any effort to address our fiscal situation that raises a single dime of revenue. The Republican approach is not fair, it is not balanced, and it stands no chance of becoming law. Meanwhile, back in the real world, the American people are wondering why Congress isn't focused on their concerns. Where is the comprehensive jobs legislation, like the Make it In America plan? Nowhere to be found. Where is the middle class tax cut bill that passed the Senate? Not on this House floor. Where is the bipartisan farm bill and drought relief bill that passed the Senate, or the Violence Against Women Act or postal reform? Not here on this floor. Where is the big, bipartisan, balanced plan to reduce the deficit? Not here. And where-- and this one really bugs me, Mr. Speaker--where in the world is a full and fair debate on the war in Afghanistan? It's absolutely stunning to me that Governor Romney accepted the nomination of his party and asked the American people for their votes to be Commander in Chief without even mentioning the longest war in U.S. history, a war that continues to do this and continues to claim the lives of American servicemen and -women, a war for which we are borrowing tens of billions of dollars every month. Apparently, the Republican leadership of this House would like to ignore these big issues and instead focus on meaningless sound bites for their 30-second political commercials. It is no wonder that the public has the lowest regard for Congress in history. I guess the Republican plan is to do next to nothing and to get out of town as quickly as possible--even though we just got back from a 5-week recess--and hope that the American people don't notice we were even here. It's a sad day for the people's House, Mr. Speaker. And let me remind my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, this is the people's House. It is not the House of Big Oil, it is not the House of Big Banks, Big Business, or special interest super PACs. This is the people's House, and I hope the people take it back. I urge my colleagues to reject this rule.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call attention to the need for stronger gun safety laws in our country. This Congress has not only failed to address the issue of gun violence in the United States, it has actually weakened gun safety laws. I am proud that my home State of Massachusetts is a leader in gun violence prevention and has the lowest firearm fatality rate per 100,000 population of any urban industrialized State. I am proud of the work being done by antigun violence advocates across the Commonwealth, including Boston's mayor, Tom Menino, and John Rosenthal, founder of the organization, Stop Handgun Violence. Today, Stop Handgun Violence is hosting a rally in Boston calling on Congress to pass stronger gun safety legislation. I applaud their work and the efforts of other organizations like the Brady Campaign as they continue to educate and advocate for sensible legislation. What more will it take for this Congress to bring commonsense gun control measures to the floor? How many more tragedies? Silence is no longer acceptable.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin). (Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman has no more speakers, I will close. Let me repeat some of what I said in my opening statement, because I think it's important for my colleagues to understand this. The Republican pathway to this tax reform is a path, as I said, for the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee to draft and to certify a bill that would receive extraordinary fast-track procedures with virtually no limit on what can be contained in it. Republicans have promised that its fast-track bill would contain at least four proposals based on the Ryan budget, in addition to the repeal of the AMT. Together, these four provisions would shift the tax burden from the wealthiest to the middle class, and it would ship jobs overseas. Let me just read one of the proposals in this bill. The Republican proposal is ``a consolidation of the current six individual income tax brackets into not more than two brackets of 10 and not more than 25 percent.'' What does this mean? It means that the average millionaire would lock in an annual $331,000 tax cut under the Ryan plan. To pay for these tax cuts, the Ryan plan would potentially eliminate provisions that are vital to the middle class, including tax deductions for mortgage interest, State and local taxes, and charitable contributions, as well as the tax exclusions for employer-sponsored health insurance and contributions to 401(k) plans. The source of this is the Joint Economic Committee. And the plan would necessarily have to raise taxes on middle class families by approximately $4,500. Another proposal in this bill is ``a reduction in the corporate tax rate to not greater than 25 percent.'' What does this mean? It means eliminating every corporate tax credit and deduction would generate only enough savings to reduce the corporate tax rate to 28 percent. To get to even 28 percent, the Republican tax plan would require wiping out every provision in the Tax Code that encourages domestic job creation, investment, and innovation. In order to raise additional revenues for a corporate tax cut, the Republicans will go after individuals or small businesses. Mr. Speaker, my friends on the other side of the aisle have made their priorities known in the budget that they all voted for. I think it's a radical approach to our economy. It's an approach that I believe and my colleagues on the Democratic side believe will be devastating to middle-income Americans. It is really unfortunate that we are here not in the spirit of bipartisanship, not in the spirit of compromise or trying to find consensus, but in a very partisan way moving this bill forward. At the end of the day, we're leaving here really doing nothing for the American people. I was listening to the debate on the drought relief and listening to Democrats and Republicans both lament that there's no farm bill. We're going on vacation, and there's no farm bill. There's no jobs bill, no jobs agenda, no tax cuts for the middle class. We all agree that we should preserve the tax breaks on people earning up to $250,000. We seem to agree on that. My Republicans friends are saying, No, we're going to hold that hostage until you make sure that Donald Trump and the people that give these exorbitant amounts to super PACs, they get their tax breaks. We could agree on that. We could actually do something for the American people, and we're leaving. No farm bill, as I mentioned, no Violence Against Women Act, no cybersecurity plan, no bipartisan plan to prevent sequester. I hear my friends on the other side of the aisle complaining about the sequester which, by the way, they caused that terrible idea to be a reality when they brought this economy almost to a collapse during the debt ceiling debate. But we're leaving. We're leaving town today to give away tomorrow. We're leaving town with all this unfinished business. We're leaving town not doing anything meaningful for the American people, especially for those in the middle and those struggling to get into the middle. This has to be one of the least effective, least productive Congresses, I think, in the history of our country. When you read these public opinion polls, there's a reason why Congress is held in such low esteem. It's because people are watching what we're doing here and wondering why we're not on their side. People who are struggling to hold on to their jobs or to get jobs are wondering why aren't we moving forward with a jobs agenda, why aren't we passing a middle class tax cut. Instead, we are here basically to pass a press release that says that at some point we're going to do tax reform, and they don't want to tell you the details of the tax reform because they think that would be very unpopular and would frighten a lot of people in this country when they see the devastating impact on the middle class. So having said that, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill. And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is true that Democrats believe that we need comprehensive tax reform. There is no doubt about that. But I want to say to my good friend from California, when he used words like ``bipartisan,'' ``consensus,'' and ``compromise'' in the context of describing this piece of legislation, I have to respectfully disagree with him. It couldn't be farther from the truth. Those words do not apply to what we are talking about here today. This is a very, very partisan bill. This bill was referred exclusively to the Rules Committee. I am a member of the Rules Committee. I don't recall the gentleman ever reaching out and asking my opinion on what a bill like this should be about. Perhaps my invitation to join the discussion was lost in the mail. If that's the case, I certainly will give the gentleman a pass, but I'm willing to bet that Ranking Member Slaughter was never consulted, that Mr. Hastings from Florida was never consulted, that Mr. Polis from Colorado was never consulted. In fact, this bill was given to us less than 48 hours before we considered it in the House Rules Committee, and every single amendment the Democrats had to try to influence this bill was defeated on a strictly partisan vote--every single one of them. So this is not in any way shape or form about bipartisanship or consensus or compromise. This is a very partisan bill. I regret that very much because we do need tax reform in this country, but this approach of shutting out the minority party entirely, I think, is the wrong way to go. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this very partisan Republican bill. Actually, I use the term ``bill'' very loosely here because this isn't really much of a bill. It's a press release masquerading as a meaningful piece of legislation. H.R. 6169 would create expedited procedures for the Republican version of comprehensive tax reform. It lays out a whole bunch of criteria that tax reform has to meet in order to get fast-track protection in both the House and the Senate. It's sort of like reconciliation, but my Republican friends don't like to admit that. There are two very big problems with the Republican approach here. First, there is nothing--nothing--in this bill that would prevent their version of ``comprehensive tax reform'' from containing anything else they want to do: Turn Medicare into a voucher program or eliminate Medicare altogether? That would be allowed. Repeal patient protections under the Affordable Care Act? Yes, they could do that, too. Eliminate the Department of Education? Sure, that would get special treatment. Or they might want to privatize Social Security--one of their oldies but goodies. It is absolutely outrageous. The second big problem is that, under this bill, the Republican author of the tax passage, as the chairman of Ways and Means and as the person who is supposed to certify that the package is eligible for expedited process as chair of the Joint Committee on Taxation, can and likely will be the very same person. Now, I like Chairman Camp--I think he's a terrific guy--but I do not believe he should be allowed to serve as prosecutor, judge, and jury on the issue of tax reform. You don't put the fox in charge of guarding the henhouse. But this debate is about much more than the terrible process outlined in this bill. This debate is about priorities. The choices here are very simple, and the contrasts are very clear. Democrats want to give every American family a tax break. On the first $250,000 of income, everybody--including Donald Trump and including all of those friends of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who give millions and millions to Super PACs--gets a tax break on the first $250,000 of income. The problem is the Republican approach to tax reform is to raise taxes on millions of American middle class families--raise them. Democrats want the wealthy to keep some of their tax cuts, but we believe during this time of budgetary crisis that we all have to sacrifice, including the millionaires and the billionaires. So we are asking them to contribute just a little bit. Everybody else is contributing. They should, too. Republicans say, no, that they want to protect those tax breaks for the wealthiest individuals and increase the deficit--in order to protect, again, the 2 percent wealthiest Americans in this country. Democrats want to pass a tax cut bill that has already passed the Senate. That's the one I was talking about, the one that gives everybody a tax break on the first $250,000 of income. We want to pass that. It could be on the President's desk at the end of the week, and we could actually have done something for the American people. Republicans want to hold that bill hostage. There is an old saying that you don't have to agree on everything to agree on something. I mean, it seems to me--again, if I am to believe the rhetoric on the other side of the aisle--that there is no objection to protecting tax breaks on the first $250,000 of someone's income. If there is consensus on that, then we ought to get that done, and then we could have the other fight about whether or not Donald Trump and Sheldon Adelson and all those other guys get tax breaks. We could have that debate later, but we could actually do something before we recess for August that would actually help people in this country. What a radical idea in this Republican Congress to do something to help somebody--to help middle-income families. We could do that, but they are saying no. We all agree that the economy continues to struggle. Of course the Republican strategy of rejecting President Obama's jobs bill and manufacturing a debt ceiling crisis contributed greatly to this economic crisis that we are in right now. My Republican friends like to talk about tough choices, about how there needs to be sacrifice in order to get our fiscal house in order. But why is it, time and time and time again, that their tough choices always seem to hurt the most vulnerable Americans? Why does their idea of sacrifice always mean poor people getting less food, or students getting less help with their tuition, or States getting less help with their roads and their bridges? It takes no political courage--zero--to say to the very wealthy, You can keep all of your tax cuts, all of your special tax breaks, and we're going to protect all of those loopholes. It takes no courage. It takes no guts to help out millionaire hedge fund traders who write giant checks to shadowy Super PACs. Mr. Speaker, this is a debate about fairness. That's what this debate should be about. It's about standing with the middle class instead of always standing with the millionaires and the billionaires. If my Republican friends were so certain about the rightness of their priorities, they would put the so-called ``principles'' in this bill into legislative language and bring it to the floor. I think the American people would cringe once they saw what those numbers would mean, but they have the ability to do that. I should remind them--and I regret this very much--but they're in charge, they run the House right now. The chairman of the Ways and Means Committee could come up with a comprehensive tax reform bill--he could have at any time the Republicans have been in control and brought it to this floor. My friends on the other side of the aisle have enough votes to pass anything. They could have done it. If they did, and if it were clear what the priorities of this Republican majority really were, and if it were there in print, I think the American people, quite frankly, would be horrified. Democrats stand ready, willing, and able to work with Republicans and all of our colleagues to enact meaningful, fair tax reform. This bill doesn't get us an inch closer to that goal. If my friends on the other side were sincere about achieving comprehensive tax reform, they would reach out to us in the drafting of a bill like this. They would have consulted with us. As I said, this legislation before us was referred exclusively to the House Rules Committee. Not a single Democrat on the House Rules Committee was consulted about this bill. My guess is not a single Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee was consulted about this bill. We will go through this exercise today. My friends on the other side of the aisle have the votes to pass it. But I'm going to tell you, Mr. Speaker, this is much ado about nothing because this is not meaningful tax reform. This is a very partisan approach to this issue, and I regret that very much. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the Jones amendment. I appreciate the efforts of the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee to provide the Administration with funds for the Afghan military and police who are being trained to take over security from our troops, but $412 million for additional incentive pay is simply crazy. For the past two fiscal years, funds for this same account remain unobligated. Not unexpended, Mr. Chair--unobligated. We need to move that unobligated funding stream along, and then determine how much more is needed in incentives for these Afghan forces. But right now we need to stop putting the money out there before anyone knows what they're doing with it. This is nearly half a billion dollars. And it's going to waste. The bottom line here is this amendment would not touch the base pay for Afghan military and police. It would not touch funds to provide food and other basic needs for these Afghan troops. It would not touch the funds for recruitment and training. Instead, under the Jones amendment, funds targeted for Afghan incentive pay would be transferred within the OCO account to augment the combat pay of our junior enlisted servicemen and women who carry out daily patrols. I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Jones amendment. It's good policy. It's a good use of funds. And it's only fair.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, this year marks the 12th consecutive appropriations season that the United States has been funding and fighting the war in Afghanistan. Sometimes it's easy to forget that we are still deep in war in Afghanistan. The threat of nuclear weapons in Iran, drone strikes in Pakistan, and the nightmare of mass murder in Syria garner the attention of the news media, but we currently have more than 90,000 troops on the ground in Afghanistan and about 110,000 contractors. Some of these troops are slated to come home over this summer, but many more, approximately 88,000, will remain. And the exact number of troops that will remain in Afghanistan as the U.S. and allies transition to local security forces through 2013 and 2014 is still unclear. Neither the Pentagon nor the administration has publicly laid out post-2014 plans, but they are clearly leaving open the possibility of a significant military presence. This is the reality we face as we open debate on this bill. Mr. Chairman, I am not convinced that there is any light at the end of the tunnel. I am not convinced that this war is coming to an end, and I do not believe we should continue sacrificing the dedication and blood of our servicemen and -women for a deeply flawed and corrupt government that is simply not ``fixable.'' Oh, we can change the names, the programs, and the projects, but it's simply more of the same problems over and over and over again. It is regrettable that this war is not more of a priority in public debate, and it is unconscionable that debating this war is not a top priority for this Congress. The majority wouldn't even let us have a full debate and vote on an amendment during the Defense authorizations bill to make sure that the commitments made by the administration to draw down our troops over the next 2 years are kept. Congress is deeply complicit in maintaining and continuing this war. We've allocated $634 billion for military operations in Afghanistan since 2001, including the $85.6 billion in this bill. We're not just spending those billions, Mr. Chairman, we're borrowing them. Every single penny for the war in Afghanistan has been borrowed, put on the national credit card, exploded our deficit and our debt--every single penny. Each week of the war in 2012 costs about $2 billion. If the Pentagon's ``enduring presence'' means thousands of troops remaining in Afghanistan after 2014 for who knows how long, then we are looking at a trillion dollar war. Meanwhile, we're cutting funds for our schools, preparing to slash billions of dollars from the safety net that's supposed to keep our people out of poverty. We're watching our roads and our bridges crumble, water systems and infrastructure decay, and we're told there's no money to invest in health care and scientific research. And for what, Mr. Chairman, for what? Show me where our military might has put a permanent end to instability, violence, or corruption. Even though the media isn't focused on it, the violence in Afghanistan goes on. The U.S. death toll for Operation Enduring Freedom is over 2,000-- 1,919 of those deaths happened in Afghanistan. Members of the Afghan military and security forces continue to turn their guns on our troops and murder them. According to the Pentagon, 154 Active Duty soldiers committed suicide in the first 159 days of this year--that's almost one per day. And as for our veterans, the VA estimates that a veteran dies by suicide every 80 minutes. How long will we ask our troops and their families to pay this price? Because they're the only ones paying for this war, Mr. Chairman, the only ones. I don't believe we should abandon the people of Afghanistan, but I do believe we must end this war sooner rather than later. And I'm not convinced we're anywhere close to an end. And it's the fault of Congress. We approve the money, and we remain silent year after year after year. We need to stop. We aren't supporting our troops; we're committing them to suffer lifelong trauma from too many deployments for too long a time over too many years for a war without end, for a war that always needs just a little more time and just a few billion dollars more. Enough is enough. I urge my colleagues to support amendments over the next 3 days to reduce the funding for this war, bring it to an end, and honor the sacrifice of our troops by bringing them and our tax dollars back home. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nugent), 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, this is a sad and deeply troubling day for this House of Representatives. The Republican leadership of this body is asking us to take the unprecedented and unjustified step of holding a sitting Attorney General in contempt of Congress. They are doing so based on a completely partisan ``investigation.'' This is a witch hunt, pure and simple, Mr. Speaker, and it has no place in this House. Eric Holder is a good and decent and honorable public servant. He has reinvigorated the Justice Department, especially on efforts to stop partisan voter suppression across the country. I find it interesting that the Republican leadership has scheduled this nonsense for the floor today when it is certain to be buried under the avalanche of news and reaction to the Supreme Court's health care decision and the highway bill and the student loan bill and everything else. Is it possible that the Republican leadership doesn't really want the American people seeing what the House is doing today? Why else would they feel the need to rush this to the floor a mere week after the House Oversight Committee voted along strictly partisan lines to adopt the Republican contempt citation? Let me say at the outset that there are certain things that all of us, Democrats and Republicans alike, agree on. We all agree that the death of Agent Terry was a terrible tragedy. We all agree that the ATF field office's embrace of gunwalking--which began under the Bush administration, by the way--was a terrible idea. We all agree that the ATF should not have sent an erroneous letter to Senator Grassley in 2011. But the contempt resolution before us doesn't have anything to do with any of that. The Department of Justice has provided thousands and thousands of documents about gunwalking. The Attorney General has testified nine times. The Department has provided over 1,000 pages of documents about the letter sent to Senator Grassley. So this isn't about getting to the truth; this is about politics. It is about politics. This is about the Republicans refusing to take ``yes'' for an answer. This is about doing whatever it takes to attack the Obama administration no matter the issue, no matter the cost. During the committee's ``investigation,'' the Republican majority refused all Democratic requests for witnesses and hearings, as well as requests to interview any Bush administration appointees. All of them were denied. The Republicans refused Democratic requests to hold a hearing with Ken Melson, the head of ATF. You know, if you're actually interested in learning about an ATF operation, don't you think you would want to talk to the leadership of the ATF? Republicans refused Democratic requests to hold a hearing with former Attorney General Mukasey, who was briefed on botched ATF operations in 2007. If you're actually interested in learning about these botched operations, wouldn't you want to talk to the man who was briefed about them? I would hope that we would all agree that we should never take a step like finding a sitting Attorney General in contempt lightly, and that we should only do so based on accurate information. But Ranking Member Cummings and his staff have found, in a very short time, 100 concerns, omissions, and inaccuracies in the committee report that is the foundation of this contempt resolution--100 inaccuracies and omissions and concerns. Sadly, instead of getting answers to those questions, this has been rushed to the floor. Mr. Speaker, the American people expect us to address the issues that matter most to them--issues like jobs and the economy and education and health care--but the Republican majority refuses to listen. Instead, they bring this resolution to the floor, and then they wonder why Congress is so unpopular. What troubles me most, perhaps, is that under this Republican majority, everything has to be a fight--everything. Everything has to be a confrontation, everything has to be a showdown. And I get the politics. I understand this is an election year. But this goes way, way too far. It is just wrong. I wish the Speaker of the House would have intervened here and kept this off the floor. By moving forward today on this resolution, we diminish the House of Representatives. This is not a happy day for this institution. I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and the underlying resolutions, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me yield myself such time as I may consume before I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, the last time Congress dealt with a contempt resolution was in the case of Joshua Bolton and Harriet Miers. The period of time between when the committee voted out the resolution and before there was floor action was 6 months. The reason why there was time taken was to make sure that we got it right. This is less than a week. And I'm going to say to my friends on the other side of the aisle that the minority staff has compiled a list of 100 inaccuracies--100 inaccuracies in the report that was the basis for this contempt resolution--100--and they're rushing it to the floor. So don't tell me this is not about politics. Don't tell me this is not a witch hunt. It is exactly what it is. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My friend from Florida (Mr. Nugent) talked about obstructionism, and I want to say a couple of words about that because I think this whole process has obstructed justice. During the committee's 16-month investigation, the committee refused all Democratic requests for witnesses and hearings, which is unprecedented. For instance, the committee refused to hold a public hearing with Ken Melson, the head of ATF, the agency responsible for this operation, after he told committee investigators privately that he never informed senior department officials about gunwalking because he was unaware of it. The committee also refused a hearing, or even a private meeting, with former Attorney General Mukasey, who was briefed on botched efforts to coordinate interdictions with Mexico in 2007, and was informed directly that these efforts would be expanded during his tenure; refused the opportunity to have the Attorney General as a witness. Mr. Speaker, this partisanship was demonstrated by the committee's vote along strictly partisan lines to hold the Attorney General in contempt and to vote along strictly partisan lines on every amendment. This is about politics. This is not about the truth. This is not about justice. This is about politics, and that is why this is such a sad day for this institution. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).