Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I and everybody in this Chamber, hopefully, wants to see democracy flourish in Iraq. But the fact of the matter is that the status quo isn't producing that. And maybe, just maybe, the corrupt and inept Maliki government will get its act together if it finally realizes that we won't be there forever, that this will not be an endless war. Our troops have sacrificed enough. They have sacrificed enough. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me go back to the subject that we are debating here today, and that is the war in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, we have been fighting this war for nearly 5 years. That's longer than we fought World War II. My friends on the other side of the aisle have said over and over and over, just give the Iraqi Government a chance. Well, Mr. Speaker, after 5 years, I say, give me a break. It is not us, not any of us in this Chamber who are in harm's way. But we have sent thousands and thousands and thousands of our fellow citizens to battle in Iraq. They are in harm's way. They wake up tomorrow in a situation where they are refereeing a civil war, and that, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, is wrong. My friends on the other side of the aisle talk about al Qaeda. Well, we're all worried about al Qaeda, too. That's why we wish we were doing the job in Afghanistan better. That's why we wish we weren't so diverted from that mission in Iraq that we could actually have better results in Afghanistan than we're having right now. We are worried, Mr. Speaker, about the fact that al Qaeda is regrouping in Afghanistan, is regrouping in Pakistan. That should be a worry to every single Member in this Chamber. And yet we are stretched so thin, we are so preoccupied in Iraq that we have lost sight of what our central mission needs to be. Mr. Speaker, victory is what is in the best interest of the American people. And this war in Iraq has not only diminished our standing in the world, it has spread our troops so thin that we can't complete missions like the one that we need to be completing in Afghanistan. Mr. Speaker, too often in this place we talk about numbers instead of the people behind those numbers. Yesterday, as I mentioned earlier, another three American soldiers lost their lives in Iraq, bringing the total to 3,858. Also yesterday, Mr. Speaker, CBS News reported that there is an epidemic of suicide among our soldiers and our veterans. Thousands and thousands of these men and women have taken their own lives. For too many, the war does not end when they return home. And behind each one of those numbers is a devastated family, a heartbroken father, a new widow, a child without a father. Mr. Speaker, we will be paying for this war for a very long, long time. Now, my friends on the other side of the aisle say we all want the war to end, we all want our troops to come home. Well, I say to my friends, here is your chance. You have a voice. Use it. You have a vote. Use it. You have the opportunity to change the direction of this policy. You have the opportunity to force the Iraqi Government to live up to its promises. You have the opportunity to finally, finally, honor the will of the American people and to safely redeploy our troops. I ask my friends to seize that opportunity and to support this bill.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. The gentleman says give the Iraqi Government a chance. We are on our fifth year, Mr. Speaker. Three American soldiers lost their lives in Iraq yesterday, bringing the total to 3,858 deaths. I think we have given them more than a chance. Mr. Speaker, at this point I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California mischaracterized my position and what I am invested in. I am invested in what is best for this country, Mr. Dreier. And I am invested in what is best for our troops. And I am opposed to this Bush policy of an endless war, and I think it would be a mistake for this Congress to give this President another blank check. This is not a meaningful charade, Mr. Dreier. Those of us who are arguing for this legislation want to bring this war to an end. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 818 provides for consideration of H.R. 4156, the Orderly and Responsible Iraq Redeployment Appropriations Act of 2008. The rule provides 2 hours of debate and provides for one motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, the war in Iraq has gone on for nearly 5 years. Thousands of our brave men and women have lost their lives. Many more thousands have returned home with injuries so severe that they will require a lifetime of medical treatments. We have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on the war, virtually none of it paid for, almost all of it on our national credit card. That means that the bill will be paid for not by us, but by our kids and our grandkids. The war has diminished our standing in the world. It has distracted us from the war in Afghanistan, the very place where those responsible for 9/11 are now regrouping. And it has put incredible strain on the readiness of our Armed Forces. The President of the United States and many of my Republican friends have argued fiercely over the years for a blank check. They want no strings, no conditions, no benchmarks, no end dates, no accountability, no nothing. Today, they will tell us that the President's strategy is working; that the recent decrease in deaths and casualties in certain areas of Iraq prove it, and, therefore, we should provide yet another blank check. Mr. Speaker, let me caution my friends about declaring ``mission accomplished'' yet again. While all of us pray that the violence continues to subside, we should also appreciate history enough to know that lulls in intense violence are not always permanent. Let me also state that the current levels of violence in Iraq are still unacceptably high. As Joe Christoff of the Government Accountability Office recently testified, this recent reduction in violence should be put into the proper context as it coincides with increased sectarian cleansing and a massive refugee displacement. Let me quote: ``You know, we look at the attack data going down, but it's not taking into consideration that there might be fewer attacks because you have ethnically cleansed neighborhoods, particularly in the Baghdad area. It's produced 2.2 million refugees that have left, and it's produced 2 million internally displaced persons within the country as well.'' Mr. Speaker, we must remember that the justification for the surge and the justification for the Bush military strategy in Iraq has always been to foster Iraqi political reconciliation. And there is precious little evidence of any such thing. Over 10 months ago, President Bush said, ``A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations. Ordinary Iraqi citizens must see that military operations are accompanied by visible improvements in their neighborhoods and communities. So America will hold the Iraqi Government to the benchmarks it has announced.'' But, Mr. Speaker, as the GAO reported last month, ``Iraq has not yet advanced key legislation on equitably sharing oil revenues and holding provincial elections. In addition, sectarian influences within Iraqi ministries continue while militia influences divide the loyalties of Iraqi security forces.'' Mr. Speaker, the Maliki government continues to be corrupt, inept and without the support of the vast majority of the Iraqi people. When will the Bush administration live up to its word and hold the Iraqi Government accountable for its actions, or inaction? The fundamental crisis facing Iraq remains the same: the inability of Sunni, Shiites and Kurds to agree to set aside their sectarian divisions and live in peace. As long as we remain there indefinitely, Mr. Speaker, there is no incentive for anything to change. Mr. Speaker, our soldiers have already given so much to create an opportunity for the Iraqi Government, an opportunity that that government has squandered. So, today, we are saying we want a different course. We reject the President's vision of an endless war that will cost more lives and bankrupt our Nation. Today, we will vote on a bill that requires the redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq to begin within 30 days of enactment, with a target for completion of December 15, 2008. It would prohibit the deployment of U.S. troops to Iraq who are not fully trained and equipped. And it changes the mission of our forces. It also extends to all government agencies and personnel the limitations in the Army Field Manual on permissible interrogation techniques, which means that torture will be absolutely banned, and anyone who engages in such practices will be committing a crime under U.S. law, no ands, ifs or buts. Mr. Speaker, it is no longer acceptable for Congress to simply write yet another blank check. It is not acceptable for the President to simply run out the clock and hand this problem off to his successor. This is a war that George Bush started, and this is a war that he needs to end. For the sake of our troops, for the sake of our country, we need to support this legislation. Enough is enough. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I yield myself 6 minutes. General Leave I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 818.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up H. Res. 818 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 809 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would just reply to the gentleman that if he has an amendment that is truly compliant with PAYGO, he can offer it as a substitute. That is allowed under the rule. At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the next speaker, I just want to respond to something the gentleman said. He questioned whether we did anything of relevance this week. Let me remind him that we did the Defense appropriations bill, which supports our troops. We did the Labor-HHS, which funds, among other things, the National Institutes of Health. We did the Homeowners' Defense bill to deal with natural disasters. There was the Peru Free Trade Agreement. There was the ENDA bill, which ends discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation. We overrode, thankfully, the President's unwarranted veto on WRDA so that we could actually support our infrastructure, which this President and the Republicans in Congress have denied funding for for so many years. So, Mr. Speaker, I think we had a good week, and I'm proud of what this Democratic Congress is doing. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin, a member of the Ways and Means Committee (Mr. Kind).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to my colleague from Washington State. He began by saying there is an easy way to do this; there is a way for Washington politicians to do this and that is to provide this relief without paying for it. That is what the Republicans have done while they were in charge here. They have borrowed and spent, borrowed and spent, borrowed and spent; and we have a debt that is in the trillions and trillions of dollars. The gentleman from Washington says that some people will have to pay more in order to offset this AMT relief package. Well, 50,000 tax returns will be affected, and that is by closing a loophole that, quite frankly, I think, every sensible person believes should be closed. But here is the return: by impacting those 50,000 tax returns, we are going to protect 23 million middle-class families from being hit by the alternative minimum tax. We will provide 30 million homeowners with property tax relief. We will help 12 million children by expanding the child tax credit. We will benefit 11 million families through the State and local sales tax deduction. We will help 4.5 million families better afford college with a tuition deduction. We will save 3.4 million teachers money with a deduction for classroom expenses, and we will provide thousands of American troops in combat with tax relief under the earned income tax credit. So what we are doing here is providing much-needed relief to middle- income families, and we are doing it in a responsible way, and we are not passing the bill onto our kids and our grandkids like they have done for years and years and years. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon of the committee on Ways and Means, Mr. Blumenauer.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker began by saying he is so proud of this economy and it's doing so well. The thing that he may not know is that he thinks it's doing well, but the majority of the American people do not think it's doing well. A recent poll showed that over 70 percent of people in this country think we are going in the wrong direction. Maybe he needs to get out of Washington a little bit more, outside the Beltway, talk to real people and understand the struggle people are going through. The gentleman also knows that tax bills are traditionally considered under a closed or structured process. Under this rule, the minority has the opportunity to offer a substitute as long as it does not violate any House rules. The Rules Committee made this substitute in order sight unseen and this rule gives the minority an opportunity to amend this bill if they choose. Again, one of the new rules that we are operating under here in the House is that you have to pay for whatever you do. You can't borrow anymore. You can't run up the natural credit card anymore. You can't burden our kids and grandkids anymore. You have to be responsible. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York, a member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Arcuri.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 809 provides for consideration of H.R. 3996, the Temporary Tax Relief Act of 2007, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate controlled by the Committee on Ways and Means. The rule makes in order a substitute amendment to be offered by Representative McCrery of Louisiana or his designee. The amendment is debatable for 1 hour. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3996, the Temporary Tax Relief Act. I want to commend the distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Congressman Charlie Rangel, for his usual great work on this bill. And I want to say a special thank you to my good friend and colleague and neighbor from Massachusetts, Congressman Richie Neal, who has been a champion on the issue of the alternative minimum tax for a long, long time. Richie Neal has been the canary in the coal mine, talking about the AMT when nobody else was, and he deserves an enormous amount of credit for his work. Mr. Speaker, we all know that the alternative minimum tax was never designed to hit middle-class families, but that's exactly what will happen unless Congress acts. In my district alone, the numbers are staggering. In 2005, 13,000 families were hit with the AMT. That number will jump to nearly 83,000 in 2007, a 517 percent increase, unless we do something about it. These middle-class workers are struggling with enough problems, skyrocketing fuel costs, higher tuition, higher property taxes, higher child care costs. And for years, President Bush and his Republican allies in Congress passed huge tax cuts for the wealthy, while doing very little or nothing to help hardworking middle-class families. That has to stop, and we're going to stop it today. My Republican friends on the Rules Committee often like to talk about how strong the economy is, how GDP is growing at such a rate. Well, I agree to a certain point, Mr. Speaker. Somebody is getting pretty rich in this economy, but I would point out that it usually isn't the workers, and they're the ones that make this country great. Last year, the average CEO made 364 times what the average worker did. Just 25 years ago, CEOs made only 42 times more. So yes, the people at the top are having a blast, but we need to do more for the people in the middle and for those struggling to get into the middle. This bill before us today not only spares these hardworking families from the AMT, but it does so in a fiscally responsible way, and that is at the heart of the argument before us today. Some of my friends on the other side of the aisle believe that we should patch the AMT without paying for it. They believe that we should simply add the cost on to our national debt, a debt, by the way, that has now reached $9 trillion. That's trillion with a ``T.'' Of course, this has been their approach for years. The Iraq War? Not paid for. The Bush tax cuts? Not paid for. The Medicare prescription drug benefit? Not paid for. But, Mr. Speaker, someday, somebody, somewhere is going to have to pay for all of that debt. It's going to be our children and our grandchildren. It's wrong and it's got to stop. It makes no sense to cut taxes for today's middle-class families just to raise taxes on future middle-class families, but that's exactly the kind of debt tax that my Republican friends would like to enact. My friends believe that these tax cuts pay for themselves. They believe that the magic money fairy will drop revenue from the sky with rainbows and butterflies. But in the real world, actions have consequences. The Massachusetts families that I am honored to represent have to make tough choices, and Congress has to make some tough choices, too. These PAYGO rules that Democrats have enacted are tough. This new fiscal discipline isn't easy, but it's the right thing to do. And rescuing tens of thousands of families in my district from the pain of the AMT is also the right thing to do. I thank my colleagues for their hard work, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question, I urge them to vote ``yes'' on the rule, and I urge them to vote ``yes'' on the underlying bill. Thousands of middle-class families in this country deserve relief from the AMT tax, and that's what this underlying bill is all about. In addition, as we provide relief to these middle-class families, we owe it to our kids not to saddle them with the bill, and that's also the purpose of the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I have two kids, a 9-year-old son and a 6-year-old daughter. I don't want to leave them with a future in which they have to pay for all of the mistakes and all of the mismanagement of my generation. The Republicans want to have it in a way that they can do things and not pay for anything. We have a war in Iraq. It's not paid for. Doesn't bother them in the least. Their prescription for health care is take two tax breaks and call me in the morning. It doesn't bother them in the least that the bill is going to be paid for by our kids and our grandkids. Tax cuts for the rich. Again, put it on the backs of our kids and our grandkids. Mr. Speaker, that is irresponsible. Our Nation is currently burdened with over $9 trillion of national debt. The average daily interest accruing on this debt exceeds $1 billion. Each American share of this debt is more than $30,000. We cannot afford to keep taking on this additional debt. When the Democrats regained control of the Congress, we instituted PAYGO rules, pay as you go. Families in America have to live within their budgets. The United States Congress ought to be able to live within a budget. We need to be fiscally responsible. So, if you want to give your rich friends a tax cut, then pay for it. If you want to have a war, then pay for it. We need to pay as you go. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. Vote ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule. The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is as follows: Amendment to H. Res. 809 Offered By Mr. Hastings of Washington At the end of the resolution, add the following: Sec. 3. The House disagrees to the Senate amendment to the bill, H.R. 2642, making appropriations for military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, and agrees to the conference requested by the Senate thereon. The Speaker shall appoint conferees immediately, but may declare a recess under clause 12(a) of rule I for the purpose of consulting the Minority Leader prior to such appointment. The motion to instruct conferees otherwise in order pending the appointment of conferees instead shall be in order only at a time designated by the Speaker in the legislative schedule within two additional legislative days after adoption of this resolution. (The information contained herein was provided by Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 109th Congress.) The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be debating. Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or control the consideration of the subject before the House being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first recognition.'' Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the pending business.'' Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time for debate thereon.'' Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only available tools for those who oppose the Democratic majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time, it's my honor to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds. Mr. Speaker, in the litany of accomplishments this week, I neglected to say that we also voted on the Military Construction bill, and we will continue to vote on it until it becomes the law of the land. And speaking of differences between the two parties, under a Democratic Congress, we are going to give our veterans the biggest single-year increase in health care benefits in the history of the Veterans Administration. That is under a Democratic Congress, not under a Republican Congress. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).