Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Let me read a quote: ``We will ensure that bills are debated and discussed in the public square by publishing the text online for at least 3 days before coming up for a vote in the House of Representatives.'' That's directly from their pledge. Yet here we are today considering a 2,300-page bill that was introduced at 11:45 p.m.--last night. That's not 3 days. That's not even 12 hours. Twenty-three hundred pages were presented to this House in the dead of night. The Rules Committee didn't finish until close to 1 a.m. this morning, and here we are. Who knows for sure what's in this bill? Who in this body has had the time to read this bill as it is currently drafted? This is not the way my friends promised to run this House.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I said to the gentleman I won't yield until I'm finished, and I would appreciate not being interrupted.

Mr. McGOVERN. This is not the way you promised to run the House. This is not how you said you would do the people's business. You said you would bring up every appropriations bill under an open rule, but you barely manage to bring up half of them. Half of the appropriations bills were never brought up before Members of this House. What happened to the Labor-HHS bill? What happened to the Transportation bill? The Financial Services bill? The Interior bill? The State and Foreign Ops bill? The CJS bill? That's not the Senate's fault; that's not Barack Obama's fault. You're in control of this House of Representatives; you have the power to bring bills up to the floor. You couldn't be bothered to bring them up. Sure, you found time to bring up bills to defund Planned Parenthood and National Public Radio. You had time to bring up bills that would allow unsafe people to carry concealed weapons from one State to another. Oh, and my favorite, you found time to reaffirm our national motto. That's what all the American people are worried about, whether we're going to reaffirm our national motto. But you couldn't find time to debate bills funding our Nation's roads, bridges, national parks, and community health centers. You couldn't find to time to do your job. Now, I'm glad the appropriators reached an agreement, but it's sad that this Republican Congress has once again broken the promise they made to the American people. A 2,300-page bill--something this important and detailed--can't be read and examined in a few hours. That's why you promised 3 days to read the bill, but you couldn't even keep that promise. I remember when they were in charge at an earlier time when immunity for prescription drug companies was inserted into an appropriations bill without anyone knowing about it.

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentlelady for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Dicks for their tireless work on this bill, and I'm pleased that we're finally going to finish the appropriations process for this year. I especially want to thank the White House, Senator Reid, and other key Senate and House negotiators for removing the House Cuba provision from the final conference report. Not only was it a direct attack on the prerogatives of the Executive, but it was cruel and inhumane. It would have ripped apart Cuban American families from their relatives on the island. Family communication, connection, and reunification have always been a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy. It has promoted great good in the case of Cuba, and it deserves the support of this Congress. And hopefully, some day soon, we can scrap our whole Cuba policy and lift the travel restrictions so every American can go visit that country. But, Mr. Speaker, I cannot let this opportunity go without commenting a little bit on the process. My friend from Georgia talked about regular order. Regular order my foot. I mean, all points of order were waived against this bill. Half of the bills that are in this--this is pretty heavy--no one had an opportunity to offer a single amendment on. ``Read the bill.'' That's what my Republican friends shouted last year, ``Read the bill.'' They used this rallying cry to promote their Pledge to America where they promised to read the bill. No one read that bill at all. Where are the Tea Party people when you want them?

Mr. McGOVERN. I think we're talking about this year, aren't we?

Mr. McGOVERN. I have the utmost respect for the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. And I take him at his word when he says there are no earmarks in this bill, that there are no special provisions, that there is nothing snuck in here at the last minute. I'm a trusting guy; but I also believe in verifying things, because in the past, things have been snuck into these bills without us knowing about it. But look at this bill. Look at this bill. It's 2,300 pages. It was just introduced in the dead of night. It was reported out of the Rules Committee almost at 1 a.m. in the morning. And this is different than what was posted a few days ago. Read the bill, Mr. Speaker. The new Republican Congress promised that we could read the bill. Too bad they're breaking their Pledge to America. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that next year we will go back to regular order, where all the appropriations bills will come to the floor and they will all be debated individually, under an open process. I hope we get to that point. But I want to say, finally, that the fact that these bills were not all brought up has nothing to do with the Senate, it has nothing to do with the President. It has everything to do with the leadership of this House that chose not to do it.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on Saturday The New York Times reported that our Ambassador in Afghanistan, Ryan C. Crocker, told a group of journalists that U.S. troops could stay in Afghanistan long past the President's 2014 deadline if the Afghan Government asked us to stay. The very next day, The New York Times reported Afghan President Hamid Karzai blaming foreigners, including the United States, for the corruption that is so rampant in his government. He had the audacity to say this at an event marking International Anti-Corruption Day. Afghanistan is one of the most corrupt countries on the face of the earth. Transparency International ranks Afghanistan as the second most corrupt government, right behind Somalia and North Korea, which tied for first place. So I ask my colleagues, why should we shed a single drop more of blood, sacrifice the lives of our service men and women, for a corrupt government that doesn't even have the decency to take responsibility for its own failures. Enough is enough. We have spent over $440 billion on military operations alone in Afghanistan since 9/11. In 2012 we aim to spend another $113 billion. By this time next year, our total spending on the war in Afghanistan, just the military operations, will be around $557 billion. That's over half a trillion dollars. And when I say ``spend,'' I really mean borrow, because from day one of the Afghanistan war--and the Iraq war, for that matter--we have not paid for the military operations in these wars. We have borrowed nearly every single penny of that money, put it on the national credit card, let it rack up over a quarter of our cumulative deficit, and help explode our debt year after year for a decade. Sadly, when it comes to paying for this war, too many in Washington are silent. Mr. Speaker, over 1,800 service men and women have died in Afghanistan, 42 of them from Massachusetts. Over 14,000 wounded. Husbands, fathers, wives, and mothers. Sons and daughters, brothers and sisters. Holes created in families and communities that can never be filled, losses that will be felt for a generation or more. Each month the tally of dead and wounded gets higher. 2010 was the deadliest year for American troops in the history of the Afghanistan war. And 2011, a close second. We have become numb to the numbers. We don't even hear them any more. But these losses resonate around family kitchen tables in the homes of the deployed every day and night of the year. We all know that the human cost of the war is found not only on the battlefields of Afghanistan. It's also found in veterans hospitals and counseling clinics around the country. We continue to struggle with soaring rates of traumatic brain injuries, post-traumatic stress and suicides among our soldiers and our veterans. So many leave the service or try and carry on military careers wounded in both body and soul. Even if we were to leave Afghanistan tomorrow--and I'm so very glad to see that our troops are coming home from Iraq--our war debt will continue for decades. And for what? For 10 years of support for a corrupt government in Afghanistan? Ten years of sacrificing our brave uniformed men and women? Ten years of borrowing money we never had? This war is no longer about going after al Qaeda--which I voted to do. Osama bin Laden is dead. Instead, we're now bogged down in a seemingly endless occupation in support of an incompetent and corrupt Karzai government. This is not what I voted for. So yes, I'm really worried when I pick up the newspaper and read Ambassador Crocker saying we may be in Afghanistan for years beyond 2014. The American people are way ahead of the Congress and the White House on this issue. They want this war ended now. But it seems that Washington just doesn't get it. But when all is said and done, the responsibility for continuing or ending the war is right here in this Chamber. We approved this war, we must now take the responsibility to end it. This is why, Mr. Speaker, I will vote against the conference report on the FY 2012 National Defense Authorization bill. The defense bill includes many good and important provisions, but it does nothing, absolutely nothing to wind down the war in Afghanistan. It's way past time to bring our troops home from Afghanistan. I can't authorize any more funding that doesn't explicitly call on the President to plan and carry out the accelerated removal of our troops. Bring them home, Mr. President. Bring them all home now. [From the New York Times, Dec. 10, 2011] U.S. Troops Could Stay in Afghanistan Past Deadline, Envoy Says (By Rod Nordland) Kabul, Afghanistan--The American ambassador to Afghanistan on Saturday raised the possibility that United States combat troops could stay in the country beyond the 2014 deadline that the White House had set for their withdrawal. The ambassador, Ryan C. Crocker, speaking at a roundtable event with a small group of journalists, said that if the Afghan government wanted American troops to stay longer, the withdrawal could be slowed. ``They would have to ask for it,'' he said. ``I could certainly see us saying, `Yeah, makes sense.' '' He emphasized, however, that no such decision had been made. White House officials said that Mr. Crocker's comments were consistent with its previously stated position. ``The president never excluded the possibility that there would be some U.S. forces here, but he stressed that security would be under Afghan lead by 2014,'' said the embassy spokeswoman, Eileen O'Connor. ``The president has always spoken of a responsible winding down of the efforts here, so talk of the possibility of some troops still being here post- 2014 is not a change in policy.'' But Mr. Crocker's comments were an explicit acknowledgment that the post-2014 forces may include combat troops, not just the trainers and advisers who had been publicly mentioned before. His comments came as the administration was engaged in discussions with the Afghan government on arrangements after 2014. At a conference in Bonn, Germany, last week, President Hamid Karzai and other Afghan officials called for political and military support for at least another decade. Referring to the NATO summit meeting in Lisbon last year at which Western leaders agreed to transfer security responsibility to Afghan forces by 2014, Mr. Crocker said: ``There is nothing in the Lisbon declaration on 2014 that precludes an international military presence beyond 2014. That is to be determined by the parties, who could be numerous, not just us, as we get closer to that date.'' In June, President Obama announced that American troop withdrawals would begin the following month, with 10,000 of the roughly 101,000 American troops then in the country to leave by Dec. 31, and an additional 23,000 to follow by the summer of 2012. ``Our troops will continue coming home at a steady pace as Afghan security forces move into the lead,'' he said. ``Our mission will change from combat to support. By 2014, this process of transition will be complete, and the Afghan people will be responsible for their own security.'' Of the first 10,000, 4,000 have left, according to a senior NATO official. In most of those cases, personnel who had been scheduled to leave were not replaced, the official said. ``We are on a timeline, as you know,'' Mr. Crocker said. ``Ten thousand out by the end of the year, that is being met.'' With the additional 23,000 by September 2012, he added, ``that basically recovers the surge''--the reinforcements Mr. Obama ordered two years ago. ``Beyond that, there are no decisions,'' he said, adding, ``And as far as I'm aware, there are no formal recommendations yet.'' Asked if that meant that the United States would not necessarily withdraw all combat troops by 2014, Mr. Crocker said, ``I don't know what we're going to be doing in 2014.'' Caitlin Hayden, a spokeswoman for the National Security Council, said that ``the president will make decisions on the size and shape of our presence after 2014 at the appropriate time, based on our interests and in consultation with our Afghan and NATO partners.'' ``We have been clear that any post-2014 presence by the U.S. would be at the invitation of the Afghan government and aimed at ensuring that we are able to target terrorists and support a sovereign Afghan government so that our enemies can't outlast us,'' she added. ``We have also been very clear that we do not seek permanent bases in Afghanistan or a long- term military presence that would be a threat to Afghanistan's neighbors.'' Military leaders have been quietly pushing to keep as many troops in the country as they can during the next two years as a safeguard while responsibility is transferred to Afghan forces. On Wednesday, The Wall Street Journal reported that Gen. John R. Allen, the United States and NATO commander in Afghanistan, had been promoting the view that the withdrawals should stop after next year, with the remaining 68,000 soldiers to be kept in Afghanistan through 2013, before cuts resume in 2014. The article said he had not formally recommended that course of action, however. Mr. Crocker noted that General Allen had made it clear that trainers and advisers would be likely to remain after 2014. Mr. Crocker said that in some cases ``major weapons systems will not reach Afghanistan'' until after 2014, so Afghans will need assistance learning how to operate and maintain them. He said he did not expect America's diplomatic presence to be reduced along with the military pullback. The number of civilian American government employees in Afghanistan increased more than threefold from 2009 to 2011, to more than 1,130, from 320. ``The decisions get made in Washington, but it's my intention that we're going to stay pretty steady,'' he said. ``As the military does draw down, I think our role will even increase in importance.''

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, can you tell us how many Democrats have cosponsored H.R. 3630?

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this closed rule and to the underlying bill. This bill and this process is so lousy, I barely know where to begin today. Let's start with the process. The bill, the way this bill was conceived, drafted and brought up may be the worst yet under this Republican-controlled Congress. Simply, this process is shameful. It's an embarrassment. This 369-page monstrosity was presented on Friday afternoon. The gentleman says that this was reported by the Ways and Means Committee. It was presented by the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. It was not reported out of that committee. I use the word presented because it was introduced on a day when no committees met and we had no votes in the House. It was referred to 12 committees, 12 different committees. That's more than half the committees in the House of Representatives. But not a single committee held a hearing or a markup on this bill. It never saw the light of day in any of these committees. There are 348 Members who sit on the committees that have jurisdiction over this bill. That's 348 Members of the House who should have had an opportunity to offer amendments and question witnesses about this bill in committee hearings or markups. Not one of these Members had an opportunity. And last night in the Rules Committee, Members came up, 12 amendments were offered. Every single one of them was rejected. Mr. Levin, the ranking member on the Ways and Means Committee, asked for a Democratic substitute to be made in order. That was rejected too. The gentleman from California says that it's traditional, when Ways and Means bills are presented, that they be done so under a closed rule. That's when it's a tax bill. This is a tax bill plus 1,000 other things that have nothing to do with tax issues. And this lousy process, I will say to my colleagues, leads to bad legislating. Just look at this bill. It's long, and it's sloppy. The Republicans who rushed to put this bill together have already found an error which we're trying to correct in the rule. Who knows how many other errors there are? Last year Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Cantor, Whip McCarthy and other members of the Republican leadership rolled out their Pledge to America, their campaign pledge to run this House in a more open way. Yet all year long they have been chipping away at their pledge, and now we have this bill that flat out breaks their pledge. In their pledge, the House Republicans promised to, and I quote, ``end the practice of packaging unpopular bills with 'must-pass' legislation to circumvent the will of the American people. Instead, we will advance major legislation one issue at a time.'' That's what they said. Yet we have three provisions--extension of the payroll tax cut, extension of unemployment insurance, and SGR, or doc fix--that are must pass by the end of this year. And do we have a clean bill that is free from unrelated provisions? Of course not. That would be logical and make too much sense. No, Mr. Speaker, the bill we have before us is loaded up with goodies to mollify the extreme right wing that is in charge of this House. Along with the extension of the payroll tax cut and doc fix, this bill includes the following: Requires the approval of the controversial Keystone pipeline; requires millions of seniors to pay more for health care; increases taxes on working families by forcing large, end-of-the- year health care payments; slashes prevention funding that actually reduces Medicare and Medicaid costs; undermines air quality, endangering the health of children and families by blocking mercury pollution reduction; cuts retirement programs for Federal workers; and extends the pay freeze for Federal workers. Each of these provisions are different. They have nothing to do with one another. Why are they all bunched together in this one bill? And these policies are bad for America. They are bad for the American people. Yet the Republican leadership continues to push these extreme and harmful policies. And even though the unemployment insurance program needs to be extended, this bill actually erodes the support program by cutting unemployment insurance benefits for 1 million Americans who lost their jobs through no fault of their own. And it imposes new limits on unemployment compensation by restricting benefits employees have paid for. Why is it so difficult for this Republican-controlled House to help the middle class and those struggling to get into the middle class? Why do they throw roadblock after roadblock in front of middle class Americans who are trying to make their lives better? Why do they continue to make it virtually impossible for us to help average people, while at the same time they do everything in their power to protect subsidies for big oil companies and tax cuts for the Donald Trumps of the world? Extension of the payroll tax cut, extension of the unemployment insurance program, and the doc fix should not be controversial. And these extensions should have been done a long, long time ago. My friends on the other side of the aisle are playing a very risky game. We know this failure to extend the payroll tax cut will mean a $1,500 tax increase on middle class Americans. We know that 160 million Americans will see their taxes go up if we don't act before the end of the year. So why are Republicans bringing a bill to the floor that we know will not pass the Senate? We know, by the way, the President will not sign it. I have a Statement of Administration Policy, which I would like to place in the Record, which basically makes it very clear that the President would veto this bill. Executive Office of the President Office of Management, and Budget, Washington, DC, December 13, 2011. Statement of Administration Policy H.R. 3630--Middle Class Tax Cut Act of 2011 (Rep. Camp, R-Michigan, and 5 others) The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 3630. With only days left before taxes go up for 160 million hardworking Americans, H.R. 3630 plays politics at the expense of middle- class families. H.R. 3630 breaks the bipartisan agreement on spending cuts that was reached just a few months ago and would inevitably lead to pressure to cut investments in areas like education and clean energy. Furthermore, H.R. 3630 seeks to put the burden of paying for the bill on working families, while giving a free pass to the wealthiest and to big corporations by protecting their loopholes and subsidies. Instead of working together to find a balanced approach that will actually pass both Houses of the Congress, H.R. 3630 instead represents a choice to refight old political battles over health care and introduce ideological issues into what should be a simple debate about cutting taxes for the middle class. This debate should not be about scoring political points. This debate should be about cutting taxes for the middle class. If the President were presented with H.R. 3630, he would veto the bill. So why are we wasting precious time? The Republican leadership insists on playing chicken with the American people just to score cheap political points. This is not a time for political theater. This is the time for responsible leadership. It's time to do the right thing for the American people and drop these controversial provisions from this bill. This is not the time to increase taxes on middle class Americans. It's time to extend the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance and the doc fix. Mr. Speaker, this House needs to get back to doing the people's business, and the people's business is jobs. It would be nice if my Republican friends would allow the President's jobs bill to come to the floor for a vote rather than bills that reaffirm our national motto or make it easier for unsafe people to carry concealed weapons from one State to another. I say to my Republican friends, the American people are outraged. They're outraged at Republican indifference to the middle class. They're outraged by Republicans' callous attitude to the most vulnerable in this country. They're outraged that Republicans are playing politics with their lives. Mr. Speaker, I urge my Republican colleagues to do the right thing, to pass a clean extension of the payroll tax cut, properly extend unemployment insurance and the doc fix. Do the right thing, and do it the right way. That's all the American people are asking for. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. I raised the issue, Mr. Speaker, because the gentleman said this was a bipartisan bill and I don't know of any Democrats that are cosponsors of the bill. First of all, let me thank the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, my good friend, Mr. Dreier, 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. I advise the gentleman from California that I am the last speaker.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to place in the Record an article from Politico entitled, ``GOP takes packaging path,'' talking about how my Republican friends have broken their Pledge to America. [From Politico, Dec. 11, 2011] GOP Takes Packaging Path (By Jake Sherman) The year-end rush to extend the payroll tax holiday has House Republicans struggling to keep up with a key promise from last year's election as they bundle together a hodgepodge of issues before skipping town for Christmas. In the Pledge to America, released by GOP leadership under much fanfare in September 2010, Republicans said they would ``end the practice of packaging unpopular bills with `must- pass' legislation to circumvent the will of the American people. Instead, we will advance major legislation one issue at a time,'' they said. They'll be doing the exact opposite this week. The year-end legislative package centered on extending the payroll tax has turned into a holiday tree filled with legislative ornaments ranging from the Keystone XL oil pipeline, the sale of broadband spectrum, an extension of jobless benefits, changes to Medicare and easing of certain environmental standards. On top of that, the House will also try to clear a nearly $1 trillion catch-all year-end spending bill--the type of appropriations package that Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) himself has decried as inadequate. Republicans bristle at the comparison, insisting they're in full compliance with their election-season promises, but the manner with which they're passing the legislation underscores larger issues Congress has to contend with as a winter chill settles on Washington: Republicans want to score political points from Democrats; the Senate is split; President Barack Obama is in reelection mode; and tax provisions are slated to expire as the Christmas recess looms. A GOP leadership aide said the comparison is ``a half-assed attempt at a `gotcha' story--and it's weak even for POLITICO on a quiet Friday afternoon.'' Michael Steel, a spokesman for Boehner, said the extension bill ``does not fit the definition of `must-pass' legislation--which generally refers to funding bills, or an increase in the debt limit--nor does it contain any `unpopular' provisions. Therefore, it is entirely consistent with the Pledge to America.'' Any number of Republicans, though, have said that the tax holiday must be extended, saying its expiration would amount a tax increase when it's least needed. Whether it's a ``must pass'' or not, the package of bills is seen as critical for both parties: If Congress doesn't act, taxes will go up on more than 100 million families, jobless benefits will expire and doctors who treat Medicare patients will have their fees slashed. Over the past week, the narrative has shifted significantly. Both Republicans and Democrats now say they want to extend the provisions, recognizing both the political and economic peril that would come from allowing the measures to run out. The argument is now over how the government will pay for it and what will ride alongside it for Republicans to say they tried to create jobs. It's all pretty familiar to Capitol Hill onlookers and could help explain Congress's 9 percent approval rating. The year-end dash--Boehner says he wants the House to be done by Friday--mirrors Congress's work during the previous 10 months. There's political posturing on both sides and panicked legislating, all set against the backdrop of a looming holiday deadline. Here's where things stand: Top GOP aides say the Republicans' Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act represents their last offer. The legislation extends the payroll tax holiday, jobless benefits and the ``doc fix,'' in addition to other sweeteners. To blunt conservative angst about the bill and to offset its cost, GOP leaders tacked on language to force President Barack Obama to restart the Keystone XL pipeline project, in addition to easing environmental standards on boilers and slashing money from the Democrats' health care law. It will hit the House floor this week. Senate Republican leaders say it has enough steam to sail through the upper chamber. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said on ``Fox News Sunday'' that Democrats such as Sens. Barbara Milkulski of Maryland and Ron Wyden of Oregon support rolling back the boiler regulation. Some Democrats, including lawmakers from labor-friendly districts, support the pipeline construction. But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said flatly that the House bill with the pipeline won't pass--and Democrats are weighing what bill to put on the floor this week. ``It's the highest priority of the president and the Democrats in Congress,'' Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois said of the payroll tax extension on NBC's ``Meet the Press.'' But there's still blowback on the pipeline issue. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), also appearing on NBC, said flatly that the ``pipeline is probably not gonna sell.'' ``At the end of the day, the payroll tax will get extended as it is now,'' Graham said. ``It won't get expanded; it'll get extended. And we'll find a way to pay for it in a bipartisan fashion.'' Senate Democrats say that's what they're trying to do. Democratic sources suggest the party might abandon its plan to institute a surtax on millionaires, eyeing instead a package with more palatable spending cuts to attract Republican support. There are a few question marks on the House side. When the package was rolled out, the conference rallied behind Boehner. But should it fray, so might its support. Boehner told members in a closed meeting he wants all 242 House Republicans to support the bill. If the Republican support does not stay intact, House Democrats will again be necessary for passage. It's an open question what they would support to offset the cost of the bill. On Friday, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was cool on changes to Medicare--including means testing for millionaires--and cutting unemployment benefits from 99 to 59 weeks. ``Some things [that] might be acceptable in terms of a big, bold and balanced plan are unacceptable if we're not only not going to the place where President Obama wants to go on the payroll tax cut, have a more modest proposal and on top of that, have consumers of Medicare pay the price,'' Pelosi said. She minced no words when talking about the Keystone pipeline. ``This is not about the Keystone pipeline,'' she said. ``The Keystone pipeline is a completely separate issue. People on both sides of the issue agree that this shouldn't be on this package. It's just not polite; it's a poison pill designed to sink the payroll tax cut.'' Mr. Speaker, the House Republicans have designed a bill to fail, and it contains poison pills which will result in tax hikes for 160 million workers and the loss of hundreds of thousands of existing jobs. They say they're for extending the payroll tax cut for middle class Americans, they say they want to help the unemployed, but yet they demand a ransom in order for us to get this passed. And the ransom that they are demanding is quite high. You've heard from Members on our side of all the poison pills that are in this bill. I have introduced into the Record the statement from the administration saying that they would veto this bill, because it is so awful, if it comes to the desk of the President. We know that the United States Senate will not move on this bill. So why are we wasting our time with precious few days left in the session? Why aren't we doing what most Americans want us to do, and that is to extend the payroll tax cut for middle class Americans and extend unemployment insurance for the millions of people who are out of work, through no fault of their own, because it's the right thing to do? My friends on the other side of the aisle have no problem with bailing out big banks on Wall Street, but when it comes to helping middle class families and working people, they squawk. You've heard over and over that this is the Christmas season; we're supposed to be generous in our hearts. I don't feel the generosity on the other side. I don't feel the compassion. I'm not sure if my colleagues understand how Americans are struggling, what it feels like to be out of work. People who are in their 50s and 60s who have lost their job and can't find another job, and my colleagues are trying to make it more difficult for them to be able to get benefits so they can keep their homes and put food on the table. My friend from California talks about, well, Mr. Levin, the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, didn't submit a substitute, he only asked for one. Well, this bill, I will again remind everybody, was presented to us on Friday when Members were home. And we had an emergency Rules Committee--which bypasses the normal procedures and the normal time given for Members to be able to offer amendments. So, I mean, everything was stacked against anybody offering an amendment in advance. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to make in order Mr. Levin's amendment in the nature of a substitute, which extends middle class tax relief, unemployment benefits, and the doc fix the right way. I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I will just close again by urging my colleagues to stand with working people in this country, to stand with those who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. I mean, it's so easy for the other side to stand with big oil companies and protect tax breaks for the wealthiest in this country. Let's have a little justice in our tax system, a little fairness. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question so we can amend this bill and make it actually address these urgent issues in a thoughtful and reasonable way, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, again, the AFL-CIO still opposes this bill. At this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

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

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

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert in the Record a letter from William Samuel, the director of the government affairs department at the AFL-CIO, in strong opposition to H.R. 3630. American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, Washington, DC, December 13, 2011. Dear Representative: On behalf of the AFL-CIO, I am writing to urge you to oppose the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2011 (H.R. 3630), which would replace a modest surtax on income over $1 million with drastic benefit reductions for jobless workers, pay cuts for public employees, reduced premium assistance for low- and middle- income individuals buying health insurance, cutbacks in preventive health services, and higher premiums for many Medicare beneficiaries. H.R. 3630 would cut the federal unemployment insurance (UI) program by more than half in 2012, reducing benefit eligibility by 14 weeks in every state and by 40 weeks in states with the highest unemployment rates. These benefit cuts would reduce economic activity by $22 billion and cost 140,000 jobs. Even more troubling, H.R. 3630 would fundamentally change the nature of unemployment insurance and erode the unemployment safety net for the future. Unemployment insurance (UI) is a social insurance program, to which workers make contributions in the form of reduced wages. H.R. 3630 would change the nature of UI by allowing states to require jobless workers to ``work off'' their benefits, in effect allowing UI to be transformed into a workfare program. H.R. 3630 would further undermine social insurance by introducing means testing, which would surely be used to restrict UI eligibility to fewer and fewer workers over time. The authors of this legislation do not seem to understand that America faces a continuing jobs crisis, and they seem to think that jobless workers--rather than Wall Street--are to blame for high unemployment and the lack of jobs. In addition to cutting unemployment benefits, H.R. 3630 would allow drug testing of all workers before they can receive benefits; require workers without a high school degree to be enrolled in classes before they can receive benefits; and make jobless workers pay out of their own pockets for reemployment services offered by the government. In order to spare millionaires from having to pay one more penny in taxes, H.R. 3630 would also require federal employees to sacrifice even more than they have already. Not only would H.R. 3630 extend the current pay freeze for federal employees, but it would also raise $37 billion in revenues by increasing federal employee pension contributions and reducing their retirement income. H.R. 3630 would also have a substantial negative impact on the health care of working families. It would impose daunting subsidy repayment requirements on families whose economic circumstances improve, which would deter 170,000 people from accepting premium assistance under the Affordable Care Act, according to the Joint Tax Committee. As a result, thousands of middle- and lower-income families would be unable to afford health insurance. In addition, H.R. 3630 would increase Medicare premiums for at least 25 percent of all beneficiaries, requiring many in the middle class to pay substantially more, and would reduce federal support for new preventive services. H.R. 3630 would protect the most privileged one percent of all Americans from having to pay one more penny in taxes, and it would do so by demanding still more sacrifice and pain from jobless workers, federal employees, and low- and middle- income families. The authors of H.R. 3630 obviously have more sympathy for millionaires than for the victims of the economic crisis caused by Wall Street. We urge you to vote against this cruel and selfish piece of legislation. Sincerely, William Samuel, Director, Government Affairs Department. At this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. McGOVERN. I have at least two more speakers.

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, we're the richest, most prosperous nation in the world, but 49 million Americans went hungry in 2009; 16 million were children. These numbers would be higher if it weren't for programs like SNAP, formerly known as food stamps, and WIC. We have a hunger crisis in America, and we are not doing enough to prevent this terrible scourge. During this holiday season, the House and Senate Hunger Caucuses are sponsoring the Hour for Hunger event. Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson and I are encouraging every Member of this House to volunteer 1 hour to highlight efforts in their districts to fight hunger. Visit a food bank or a food pantry, host a food drive. It's not hard, but it's important and effective. Finally, I want to urge the White House to host a Conference on Food and Nutrition so we can develop and implement a comprehensive and coordinated national strategy to end hunger in America once and for all. Hunger is a political condition. All we need now is the political will to end it.