Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Just, again, we want to make sure everybody has got the right terminology correct and we are clarifying the Record. The H. Res. that Mr. Boehner has introduced, that my friends on the Republican side are touting as something substantial, gives the appearance of doing something, when in reality it does nothing.

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

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

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlelady from North Carolina for her remarks, much of which I agree with--and I don't always agree with her. I especially appreciate her emphasis on the importance of the War Powers Resolution and how it applies here. I again want to emphasize the importance of the War Powers Resolution because I was really surprised by the way the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee kind of diminished what the War Powers Resolution is all about. I want to read to you and read to my colleagues a section from a briefing paper that the Congressional Research Service put together. Let me just read this part here: ``Section 1 establishes the title `The War Powers Resolution.' The law is frequently referred to as the `War Powers Act,' the title of the measure passed by the Senate. Although the latter is not technically correct, it does serve to emphasize that the War Powers Resolution embodied in a joint resolution, which complies with constitutional requirements for lawmaking, is a law.'' What I find puzzling is that we're all talking about the importance of the War Powers Resolution, and my friends on the other side of the aisle are saying, Well, that's why you need to support the Boehner H. Res, which, again, does nothing. I mean we could do a press release, and it would have the same impact that the resolution Mr. Boehner has introduced would have on the President of the United States and, unfortunately, on the President of the United States to do certain things. Again, I want to emphasize that there is a War Powers Resolution. It is law. It is important that we understand that and understand we have a role in that. What Mr. Kucinich is trying to do is to assert the proper congressional role with regard to War Powers Resolution. What my friends on the other side of the aisle are trying to do is, I guess, either provide cover for Members so they don't have to vote for Mr. Kucinich's resolution or to make a statement, but it doesn't really do anything. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from South Carolina for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, last week the House spoke quite clearly on the question of Libya during the debate on the fiscal year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act. By a vote of 415-5 on a bipartisan amendment offered by Congressman Conyers, the House voted against U.S. deploying ground troops in Libya. So the House has clearly stated its position on U.S. military operations in Libya. But that vote did not touch upon two serious matters, each very much connected to the other. First is the fact that the President did not seek a congressional authorization for a U.S. military operation in Libya in coordination with our NATO allies; nor did the leadership of this House insist on one or pursue one. Second, under the War Powers Resolution, the President has not sought the authorization of Congress during the required time period to maintain U.S. Armed Forces in military operations in Libya. Simply put, under the War Powers Resolution, the President must obtain congressional authorization for military action that lasts longer than 60 days. If Congress does not authorize military action, the President must withdraw troops within 30 days. The 60-day authorization deadline expired on May 20, and the 30-day withdrawal deadline expires on June 19. Therefore, the Congress now has the responsibility to call for the end of U.S. military operations in the absence of a clearly defined authorization for U.S. military operations in Libya. Last night, Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee considered two resolutions: one offered by Representatives Kucinich, Burton and Capuano, which clearly addresses the violation of the War Powers Resolution and would require the withdrawal of U.S. forces from military operations in Libya. If passed by the House and the Senate, it would have the force of law. The other, offered by the Speaker of the House, is a simple H. Res, a nonbinding resolution, a document which is simply advisory in nature and relevant only as a statement of the House, which reprimands the President for failing to seek proper authorization for our military operations in Libya, asks for reports to provide the House with necessary information regarding national security interests and costs of the Libya operation, and then does nothing. Nothing, Mr. Speaker. It again shirks the responsibility of this House and this Congress as a whole to either take up and pass an authorization for U.S. military operations in Libya, or pass a resolution requiring a withdrawal of U.S. forces and an end to U.S. military operations in Libya. Mr. Speaker, it's easy to complain, it's easy to lay blame, but it takes leadership to own up to our own responsibilities and take appropriate action, and it takes leadership to handle this process in a responsible way. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, this process does not do that. The Republican leadership rushed their resolution through the Rules Committee without any hearings and without any markup, violating their 3-day pledge to allow people to read the bill. So much for the new, open House of Representatives. This would be sad, Mr. Speaker, if it weren't so important. War is a serious issue. Whether we are sending unmanned drones, armed jets or American soldiers into harm's way, war must be debated and considered by the Congress in a responsible manner. The Republican leadership, however, is not treating this issue the way it deserves to be treated. This debate deserves better, quite frankly. The American people deserve better. I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, when it comes to their idea of eliminating Medicare as we know it, the Republicans are holding a bad hand. But instead of folding like a smart card player would, they have decided to go all in. Yesterday, the Republican majority voted to deem their radical Medicare plan as passed into law, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of Americans oppose them. At a time when Big Oil is making record profits and gouging consumers at the pump, the Republican majority has voted to balance the budget on the backs of the most vulnerable people in America: our children, our seniors, our students, and our disabled. At a time when millions of Americans are struggling to just get by, the Republican majority has voted to provide massive tax cuts for the very rich. It's not fair and it's not right. The American people are paying attention, Mr. Speaker. They are making their voices heard, including at the ballot box. I urge my Republican colleagues to listen and to abandon their reckless policies. Leave Medicare alone.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I am very proud to yield 2 minutes to the cosponsor of this amendment, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Too many people have died in Afghanistan. Since January, I have attended three funerals in my district alone of young men who have sacrificed their lives there. Tens of thousands more have been wounded. And the suicide rate among our veterans from Afghanistan and Iraq is soaring. There is no clear mission. The Karzai government is corrupt. We continue to borrow money to pay for this war. We need to rethink what we're doing in Afghanistan. It's time to define the plan to bring our uniformed men and women home to their families and to their communities, where they belong. Mr. Chairman, this is the longest war in our Nation's history. It's no longer about al Qaeda. I've met with our troops in Afghanistan. I've met with them after they have come home. They are incredible. Politicians put them into harm's way. And we now have an obligation to get them safely home. President Obama has promised a drawdown of U.S. troops in July. Now we hear that might just be a token drawdown. This amendment, Mr. Chairman, and the vote on this amendment can send the President a clear signal of support for a meaningful drawdown of troops. Help him do what the American people want him to do: bring our troops home and invest in America. We need to safeguard our national security. We all agree with that. But many of our greatest problems aren't halfway around the world; they are halfway down the block. And rather than nation building in Afghanistan, we need do some more nation building right here in the United States. Mr. Chairman, this is not a partisan issue. It's about doing what's right for our troops and for the Nation. If you have ever once thought that we need to do something different in Afghanistan, that it's time to rethink our policy, that we need to bring our troops home to their loved ones, then this is the amendment that you need to support. I ask my colleagues to vote for this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished minority whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. McGOVERN. On that I ask for a recorded vote.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, for the sake of our troops and our country, I urge support of this amendment. I yield 1 minute to the minority leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question so we can help our veterans, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule. I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment Offered by Mr. Bishop of Utah

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Speaker, let me close by making a couple of points here. First, I would urge everybody, Democrats and Republicans, to support the McGovern-Jones amendment on Afghanistan. I think there is bipartisan concern and bipartisan anxiety about our policy. I think there are Republicans, as well as Democrats, who believe that it's time to rethink this strategy and to come up with an exit strategy to bring our troops home, to bring them back to their families and to bring them back to their communities. We need to make our voices heard. The President has said in July he is going to make an announcement about the drawdown of American troops. We're hearing from some sources that it may be only a token drawdown. We need a real drawdown, a significant drawdown, because if not, we are going to be engaged in a war that has no end. We are borrowing money like there's no tomorrow to pay for this war; $8.2 billion a month we're borrowing. We're not even paying for it. For those who support this war, I would say that if you support it, then pay for it. And I will tell you that most of the people across this country believe it's time to leave. We're supporting a corrupt government. The Karzai government is corrupt. There's no question about it. By every measure, they are wasting our money. And this is not a man, quite frankly, who our American servicemen and -women should have to die for. We are nation-building in Afghanistan when we should be doing nation- building here in the United States. My district is not unique in its need for more investments in roads and bridges. We need more investments in job creation to put people back to work. People want to invest here in the United States because national security also means whether or not people have a job, whether or not people can earn a living. I would urge, again, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to help me and help Mr. Jones and the others who cosponsored this amendment, put a little wind behind the President's back in July so that he makes a meaningful announcement so that we can see the light at the end of the tunnel so that there is an exit strategy. Mr. Speaker, let me also urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to make in order H.R. 1979 by Mr. Andrews of New Jersey, to expand eligibility for concurrent receipt of military retired pay and veterans disability compensation to include chapter 61 disability retirees, to increase the monthly amount of special survivor indemnity allowance for widows and widowers of deceased members of the Armed Forces and to enhance the ability of members of the Reserve components who serve on active duty or perform active service in support of a contingency operation or in other emergency situations to receive credit for such service in determining eligibility for early receipt of nonregular service retired pay. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would again remind my colleagues that on the issue of what our future should be in Afghanistan, those of us who want us to rethink our policy and develop an exit strategy are given 5 minutes--5 minutes. We could debate whether we should fund National Public Radio or not for hours, and all the other items on the Republican social agenda for hours and hours and hours, but when it comes to the issue of war, we are told you get 5 minutes. I don't think that's adequate. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

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

Mr. McGOVERN. I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo).

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman 1 additional minute.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments, although I do continue to believe that on these great issues that we need more than 5 minutes to be able to present our case. Our entire policy in Afghanistan, we are given 5 minutes to debate the issue. I don't think that that's right. I would now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).