Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. General Leave

Mr. McGOVERN. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1487.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman 30 additional seconds.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, again, the proposal that the Republicans are talking about today represents less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the Bush tax cuts that weren't paid for. I mean, where was the fiscal responsibility then? At this point, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).

Mr. McGOVERN. If the gentleman wants to know why I think you want to cut Social Security, I am referring to the article in which the minority leader is quoted quite extensively on that issue. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I hope we all can agree that we shouldn't be cutting Social Security. I hope the minority leader will get on the floor and will retract his statement that we should be cutting Social Security to pay for this war. They have abdicated their responsibility for 8 years, and now they want the senior citizens of this country to pay for this war. I think that's wrong. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Carson).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1487 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

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

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

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I rise to express my continuing and growing concern over our policy in Afghanistan. As General Petraeus appears before the Senate and as we are being asked to consider tens of billions of dollars in supplemental funding for the war, I believe that now is the time for us to ask tough questions and to demand straight answers. Of all the problems that President Obama inherited from the Bush administration, Afghanistan is the one that keeps getting more complicated. In just the past few weeks, two brave, young soldiers from my congressional district in Fall River, Massachusetts, lost their lives in Afghanistan. So this is a big deal, and we need to get it right. Last December, President Obama told the American people that we would begin to withdraw our forces next July. The American people deserve to know if that plan is still in place and how we are going to get there. Much has been made about General Stanley McChrystal's comments in Rolling Stone magazine about the Nation's civilian leadership; but frankly, Madam Speaker, this is much bigger than a few ill-considered comments. Indeed, there are other parts of the article that I find to be much more disturbing. For instance, General McChrystal, himself, referred to the biggest military operation of the year so far, the offensive in Marja, as a ``bleeding ulcer.'' General McChrystal's chief of operations said that Afghanistan ``is not going to look like a win, smell like a win or taste like a win. This is going to end in an argument.'' Before the Marja offensive began, General McChrystal personally went to President Karzai's palace to get his consent on the operation. According to the article, ``Karzai's staff, however, insisted that the President was sleeping off a cold, and could not be disturbed. After several hours of haggling, McChrystal finally enlisted the aid of Afghanistan's defense minister, who persuaded Karzai's people to wake the President from his nap.'' A senior adviser to General McChrystal said, ``If Americans pulled back and started paying attention to this war, it would become even less popular.'' A senior military official said this, ``There's a possibility we could ask for another surge of U.S. forces next summer if we see success here.'' So the administration has determined General McChrystal's exit strategy, but it is the exit strategy for the rest of our brave soldiers that I am more worried about it. Madam Speaker, I voted in 2001 to go to war in Afghanistan--to hunt down al Qaeda and to eliminate their threat, and I would cast that same vote today in a heartbeat. Though, what we are doing in Afghanistan today is far beyond that original authorization. We are engaged in extensive, expensive nation-building in Afghanistan. Frankly, given the level of unemployment and the severe economic situation we face in the United States, I would rather do a little more nation-building here at home. We have borrowed $350 billion--added to the debt--for the war in Afghanistan. My Republican friends have refused to support extending unemployment benefits for our out-of-work Americans because they say we can't afford it. We are told we can't afford to help States' avoiding laying off teachers. We are told we can't afford to improve our roads and bridges or to help more families afford a college education. We are told we can't afford to prevent foreclosures or to improve child nutrition. Now we are being asked to borrow another $33 billion for nation-building in Afghanistan. We don't have the money to help American working families, but when it comes to supporting a corrupt and incompetent Karzai government, we are supposed to be a bottomless pit. Not so fast, Madam Speaker. Last week a bipartisan group of us sent a letter to the Speaker, urging that the House not consider the supplemental before some serious questions about our policy in Afghanistan are addressed. Even if we move forward this week, I hope that we are given an opportunity to have a thorough debate on this issue and to get a clean vote on whether or not we should continue our funding at current levels. This is life and death. This is about sending our troops into harm's way. This is about whether or not we can afford to continue this policy. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to think long and hard this week about this critical issue.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, Ron Gettelfinger, a lifelong defender and advocate for workers' rights, retired last week as President of the United Auto Workers, UAW. From the start, working on the assembly line in 1964 at Ford Motors in Louisville, Kentucky, to his recent retirement as the UAW President, Ron has tirelessly fought for labor rights for the American worker. In addition, Ron has been willingly worked in a pragmatic fashion with the automobile industry, helping to stabilize business and labor relations. Whether it's been pushing for health care reform, fair trade agreements, or collective bargaining rights, Ron has been a staunch and steadfast leader. Fighting hard against what the UAW has dubbed ``the corporate global chase for the lowest wage which creates a race to the bottom that no workers, in any country, can win,'' Ron has been a galvanizing figure in workers' rights here in America and across the globe. While Ron will surely be missed at the UAW, but the mark he has left there will continue to serve as a source of inspiration. I thank Ron Gettelfinger for his service to workers and to his country.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, let me again point out that one of the reasons why the American people overwhelmingly support this bill is because they don't want financial institutions, TARP recipients, to be able to use taxpayer money to run negative ads. One of the reasons why the American people overwhelmingly support this act is because they know the status quo basically is the BP protection policy, which is you allow foreign companies to be able to set up these sovereign wealth funds and be able to funnel money into elections to run ads for and against people. We know that the insurance industry wants to spend a lot of money in this election, but they don't want to tell anybody they're an insurance industry when they attack the health care plan. We know that the Big Oil companies are going to want to run a lot of ads to try to keep their friends in Congress, those who apologize for their bad behavior; but they also know if they announce to the American people that oil companies are paying for this that they will get a different reaction. So this is important. And I think the American people are way ahead of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. At this point, Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, the resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 5175, the DISCLOSE Act, under a structured rule. The resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The resolution provides 1 hour of debate on the bill. The resolution provides that the substitute amendment, recommended by the House Administration Committee, modified by the amendment printed in part A of the Rules Committee report, shall be considered as adopted. The resolution makes in order five amendments printed in part B of the Rules Committee report. The resolution waives all points of order against such amendments except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The resolution provides one motion to recommit without or without instructions, provides that the Chair may entertain a motion to rise only if offered by the chair of the House Administration Committee or his designee, and provides that the Chair may not entertain a motion to strike the enacting words of the bill. The resolution permits the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules through the legislative day of Friday, June 25, 2010. The resolution waives a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a two-thirds vote for same day consideration of a report from the Rules Committee through the legislative day of Friday, June 25, on a measure that includes a subject matter in H.R. 4213. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and in strong support of the underlying bill. During my time in Congress, I haven't had a single constituent say to me, ``You know, Jim, I think there should be more special interest money in politics.'' Obviously, the conservative activist judges that now make up the majority of the Supreme Court don't live in my district. Because in January, the court tossed aside decades of established law and legal precedent by ruling that corporations and unions can spend unlimited amounts of money in Federal elections. As Justice John Paul Stevens pointed out in his dissent, the decision ``would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans.'' It is a sad state of affairs when Swift Boating has entered the language as a verb. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court's decision makes Swift Boating easier for the special interests. Large multinational corporations would now be able to create shadowy groups and pour millions and millions of dollars into supporting or defeating candidates. If BP doesn't like somebody, they could create ``Americans For Sensible Energy'' and run attack ad after attack ad after attack ad. While we cannot undo the court's decision, we can and we must try to minimize its impact. That is why the sensible, bipartisan legislation before us today is so important. The DISCLOSE Act will go a long way toward restoring openness and transparency in our political process. I want to commend Chris Van Hollen and Mike Castle for their work on this bill. The legislation does several important things. It requires the heads of these third-party organizations to stand by their ad, just like political candidates are required to do. It requires the organization to list its top five contributors onscreen at the end of the ad. It would ban U.S. corporations that are controlled by foreign interests and foreign companies like BP from making political expenditures in our elections. I know there are some on the other side who have been apologists for BP who may be troubled by that, but I think most Americans believe that foreign influences should not dictate our elections. And it would prohibit entities that receive large amounts of taxpayer money like Wall Street banks and Government contractors from pouring money into politics. The bill is supported by the League of Women Voters, Public Citizen, Common Cause, and other national reform groups. To be sure, the bill isn't perfect. It contains an exemption for certain, long-standing organizations that take a small amount of corporate or union money. I know a lot of us are not particularly pleased with that change, but we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Moving forward, I would urge my colleagues to examine a bill offered by my colleague from Massachusetts, Mike Capuano, the Shareholder Protection Act. This bill would give shareholders a voice in how companies spend their money. Opponents of this bill that we are considering today have already begun making noises about challenging it in court. I would remind them that polls show that the American people are overwhelmingly supportive of this reform. We must do all we can to bring more openness and transparency to our political process. The DISCLOSE Act before us today is a vital step. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Dr. Foxx. All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. General Leave

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1468 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McGOVERN. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material into the Record on House Resolution 1468.

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

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

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