Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me remind my colleagues that this program expires in 6 days and that the Republicans in the Senate blocked a motion to go to conference. That's why we are here. The other reason why we are here is we want to make sure that 10 million children in this country get health insurance. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee (Mr. Rangel).

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin). (Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that this is a proud day for the House of Representatives. If we can pass the bill and send it to the President, that will guarantee 10 million children who don't have health insurance currently that they will get health insurance. That is something we can be proud of. That is an accomplishment. That is results. We have heard a lot of excuses from the other side. A lot of my friends say, ``I love SCHIP, but I just don't want to vote for it. I love all of our children in this country. I believe everybody should have insurance, but I am not willing to vote to make sure that they have insurance.'' Well, Mr. Speaker, that doesn't cut it. The American people are sick of the stalling tactics. They are sick of the excuses. They are sick of the lack of results that they have seen in the area of making sure that everybody in this country gets health insurance. And that is one of the reasons why, I should tell the gentleman from Texas, why his party lost in the last election, because it was perceived by the American people that his party wasn't responding to the real challenges and the real needs of the American people, that they were indifferent to the plight of uninsured children across this country. It is time to do the right thing, Mr. Speaker. As I said in the very beginning of this debate, the choice really is very simple, will you vote to provide health insurance to millions of children, or will you vote to take health insurance away from children who currently have it? This is the choice. Voting ``no'' or voting for all the procedural motions that the gentleman from Texas has put forward will basically result in children currently who have insurance losing that insurance, because the President's plan doesn't provide nearly enough money to cover those who are already enrolled in the program. But we need to do better. The bottom line is that we are the richest country on the face of the Earth. It is unconscionable that every person in this country does not have health care. It is even more outrageous that our children don't have health insurance. It is, quite frankly, outrageous that the President of the United States is holding a veto threat over this bill, a bill to guarantee that more of our children have health insurance. Of all the things he could possibly veto, this is where he draws the line in the sand when it comes to making sure that our kids get the health care they deserve? It takes my breath away when I think that this is the issue that he chooses to have a fight over, health insurance for our children. I am grateful that there are Republicans who are going to join with us on this vote. So, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose 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 I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous materials into the Record.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I move to table the appeal of the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from New Hampshire for her remarks and for yielding me the time and for her leadership on the Armed Services Committee. I also want to thank my good friend from Georgia for his words in support of this resolution, House Resolution 443, which pays tribute to the 65th Infantry Borinqueneers and to the men and women of Puerto Rico who continue to serve our country with honor and distinction. Mr. Speaker, I will insert into the Record a letter from Anibal Acevedo Vila, the Governor of Puerto Rico, endorsing this legislation. July 18, 2007. Hon. James McGovern, House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman McGovern: Thank you for your efforts to recognize the service of Puerto Ricans in the armed forces of the United States, and in particular, the 65th Infantry Borinquineers, by introducing H. Res. 443. Puerto Ricans have served with great distinction in the military, and I appreciate your efforts to highlight their service. The 65th Infantry Borinquineers were founded as an all- Puerto Rican regiment in 1899, and served in World War I, World War II, and in the Korean War. It was in this last campaign that the 65th Infantry earned their renown, leading General Douglas MacArthur to remark: ``[t]he Puerto Ricans forming the ranks of the gallant 65th Infantry . . . are writing a brilliant record of achievement in battle and I am proud indeed to have them in this command. I wish that we might have many more like them.'' During the Korean War, members of the 65th Infantry were awarded 10 Distinguished Service Crosses, 256 Silver Stars, and 606 Bronze Stars. As H. Res. 443 acknowledges, Puerto Ricans have a tradition of dedicated and honorable service in the armed forces of the United States. Military units from Puerto Rico were among the first to deploy following the attacks of September 11, 2001, and over 7,000 members of our National Guard have since been deployed in support of current operations. Over 55 soldiers, sailors and airmen of Puerto Rican descent have lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are over 144,000 veterans living in Puerto Rico, and four sons of the Island have earned the Medal of Honor since Vietnam, the second highest per capita of any jurisdiction in the United States. Puerto Rican soldiers in the armed forces today continue the tradition of the 65th Infantry by serving with honor and distinction and make all Puerto Ricans proud of their service. Once again, I appreciate your introduction of H. Res. 443 to recognize and commend those Puerto Ricans who have served in the past and present in our nation's armed forces, and I look forward to the resolution's adoption. Sincerely, Anibal Acevedo Vila, Governor, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Mr. Speaker, it has been a privilege to learn about the proud service of the 65th Infantry Borinqueneers, the only Hispanic-segregated unit in the United States Military history. The first native Puerto Rican troops were approved by Congress in 1899, designated as the Puerto Rican Regiment U.S. Volunteers. The regiment was ordered to war strength in 1917 and served in defense of the Panama Canal during World War I. On June 4, 1920, the regiment was officially re-designated as the 65th Infantry, U.S. Army. After serving ably in France and Germany during World War II, the 65th was ordered to Korea in 1950. It was during the Korean War where the 65th Infantry invoked the name Borinqueneers, and it is also where they demonstrated their military prowess. The name Borinqueneers comes from the word Borinquen, which is the original native Taino Indians of the island we now call Puerto Rico. Many members were direct descendants of these native people. The Borinqueneers fought on the front lines in Korea, participating in nine major campaigns throughout the war. They were the protection force for marines withdrawing from far inland positions. They were the leading unit in the United Nations offensive of April 1951. In every campaign they performed as one of the most effective infantry regiments in the Army. Earning the respect and admiration of fellow soldiers and military leaders, General Douglas MacArthur himself remarked, ``They showed magnificent ability and courage in field operations,'' and ``they are a credit to Puerto Rico, and I am proud to have them in my command.'' Mr. Speaker, it is of the utmost importance that we recognize the valiant service of the Borinqueneers and that we recognize the sacrifices made by the people of Puerto Rico during the Korean War: 61,000 Puerto Ricans served in the U.S. Army during the Korean War, the overwhelming majority in the 65th Infantry Regiment. By the end of the war, 743 Puerto Ricans were killed, and over 2,300 wounded. One of every 42 casualties suffered by U.S. forces in Korea was Puerto Rican. Puerto Rico endured one casualty for every 660 of its inhabitants, a disproportionately heavy burden for the small island. This statistic highlights the enormous sacrifice by Puerto Rico, and it gives testament to the honor and distinction of their service. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to note some current efforts to promote and preserve the history of the 65th Infantry Borinqueneers. In my district, the Korean War Memorial of Central Massachusetts Committee, along with Colonel Gilbert Villahermosa, Inspector General of the Massachusetts Army National Guard, and the Puerto Rican community of central Massachusetts are working together to commemorate the 65th Infantry. The efforts have included promotion of the documentary film ``The Borinqueneers,'' construction of a memorial flagpole, and Colonel Villahermosa himself has released a book detailing the critical role which the 65th Infantry played in Korea. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to have introduced this bill with the Representative from Puerto Rico (Mr. Fortuno), and I would also like to thank Chairman Skelton and all members of the Armed Services Committee who supported its consideration on the suspension calendar. Again, I want to thank my two colleagues, the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), for their words here today. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to pass House Resolution 443.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, during the 1972 presidential campaign, Eleanor McGovern inspired the slogan, ``Put another Eleanor in the White House.'' The comparison to Eleanor Roosevelt is an appropriate one because Eleanor McGovern was a trailblazer and a truly great woman. She was an unapologetic liberal Democrat who cared deeply about people and about this planet. She was outspoken in her support for our nation's children--demanding more attention and resources for early childhood development programs and better schools. She understood the importance of focusing on the needs of children beginning at birth. Had she become First Lady, this country's education system would be much improved and our children would be much better served. She believed we should be better stewards of our precious environment long before ``mainstream America'' began to worry about global warming as an issue. Having just returned from a visit to the beautiful and breathtaking Black Hills of South Dakota, I can better understand Eleanor's love for open space and nature. And like her husband George, Eleanor McGovern was a tireless advocate for peace. She campaigned every bit as hard as George to end the tragic war in Vietnam. She felt equally strong that the current war in Iraq was a mistake. As one who got to know Eleanor pretty well over the years, I always enjoyed our talks and valued her insights. She loved to read and knew the issues better than most members of Congress. In fact she would have made an excellent congresswoman, U.S. Senator or even President. Wherever Eleanor was, there were always plenty of books, magazines and newspapers. She underlined passages that held special meaning and she carefully collected magazine articles that she thought would be of use to George. She also loved her gardens. When they lived in Washington, D.C., Eleanor treasured her small garden. She loved not only the flowers, but also the wildlife they attracted. She regularly fed the birds, raccoons and whatever else inhabited their neighborhood. She was a loving mother who raised five incredible children. Sadly, her daughter Terry died after years of struggling with alcoholism. That terrible tragedy was heartbreaking for all of us who knew Terry, but it took a heavy toll on both Eleanor and George. Eleanor loved George and George loved her. There is no way he would have become a U.S. Congressman or Senator or Presidential nominee without Eleanor. Her intellect, her love for this country and her respect for George were essential throughout her career. Millions of Americans got to know and admire Eleanor in 1972. She campaigned with great enthusiasm for the McGovern-Shriver ticket--often on her own. She was not content to merely pose for pictures with her husband--instead, she gave speeches, attended rallies, appeared on political talk shows and contributed to policy discussions. I will always believe that our country missed out by not electing George McGovern as president in 1972. It's not just because George would have made a superb president, but also because Eleanor would have been an incredible first lady. She would have been an ambassador for all that is good and decent about our country. I am deeply grateful to my colleague from South Dakota, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, for her leadership in naming Postal Service facility at 202 South Dumont Avenue in Woonsocket, South Dakota as the ``Eleanor McGovern Post Office Building'' and for her recognition of Eleanor's many contributions. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2654. In closing, let me say very simply--what this world needs is more Eleanor McGoverns. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee is expected to meet on Monday, September 10, to report a rule that may structure the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 1852, the Expanding American Homeownership Act of 2007. Members who wish to offer an amendment to this bill must submit 30 copies of the amendment and a brief description of the amendment to the Rules Committee in H-312 in the Capitol no later than 11 a.m. on Monday, September 10. Members are strongly advised to adhere to the amendment deadline to ensure that amendments receive consideration. Amendments must be drafted to the bill as reported by the Committee on Financial Services on June 28, 2007. The text of the bill is posted on the Rules Committee Web site. Amendments should be drafted by legislative counsel and also should be reviewed by the Office of the Parliamentarian to be sure that the amendments comply with the rules of the House. Members are also strongly encouraged to submit their amendments to the Congressional Budget Office for analysis regarding possible PAYGO violations.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am proud of what the Democratic Rules Committee did last night. I think the gentleman has a little problem saying Democratic, but that's what it is, Democratic Rules Committee. Yes, this is an open rule that calls for a preprinting requirement so that people can actually read what we're going to debate. I'm sorry that the gentleman from Texas doesn't believe that Members of Congress deserve the courtesy of being able to read what they should vote on. I should also say that the gentleman, if he's got a brilliant idea along the way, that his leadership can work with our leadership and maybe we can come to some sort of accommodation if there's another amendment that hasn't been offered. But I will remind him that the majority of amendments that have been preprinted are Republican amendments. I will also remind him, in case he forgot, that last night in the Rules Committee when we called for a roll call vote, the former chairman of the Rules Committee, the distinguished Republican from California (Mr. Dreier) voted ``yes'' for the rule. The distinguished Republican gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) voted ``yes'' for the rule. So I'm not quite sure what the controversy is. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time at this point.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 633 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. I am the final speaker on this side, so I will let the gentleman close.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would close by simply saying that this is a good underlying bill. I hope it passes, but this is also a good rule. It is an open rule that requires the preprinting of amendments so that Members who come to the floor can have an opportunity to read and to study what they're going to vote on. This was a rule that had strong bipartisan support in the Rules Committee last night, including from the distinguished former chairman, the ranking Republican from California (Mr. Dreier); from Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, the Republican from Florida. This is a good way to approach this issue, and with that, Mr. Speaker, I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the underlying bill as well. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose 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. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 633 provides for the consideration of H.R. 2786, the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Reauthorization Act of 2007, under an open rule with a preprinting requirement. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate controlled by the Committee on Financial Services. The rule tables H. Res. 595, H. Res. 596, H. Res. 613, and H. Res. 614. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and in support of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Reauthorizaton Act of 2007. This is an open rule that allows for any germane amendment to be offered to this bill, as long as it is preprinted in the Congressional Record. I am pleased to see seven amendments were preprinted in the Record, and it is important to note that six of these are Republican amendments. I commend my colleagues Chairman Frank, Ranking Member Bachus, Housing Subcommittee Chair Waters, Housing Subcommittee Ranking Member Biggert, and the members of the Committee on Financial Services for their hard work and for this excellent bill. I also want to commend the bipartisan efforts of Congressmen Kildee, Cole, Pearce, Boren and Renzi for their tireless work on this bill and on Native American issues overall. H.R. 2786 takes a critical step in addressing Native American housing needs. By providing desperately needed reforms, this legislation allows Native American communities to put roofs over the heads of its neediest members. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2786 increases flexibility and independence within the tribal housing authorities to best meet the needs of their individual communities. This legislation ensures safety and quality of housing by allowing Native American tribes to set aside up to 15 percent of their grant funding for housing rehabilitation, construction and acquisition. Increased efficiency within housing authorities means more affordable housing for more low-income families. In addition to guaranteeing available and quality housing, H.R. 2786 allows tribes discretion in tailoring block grant funding to their community. Tribes will be able to compete for a greater variety of available grants and attend educational seminars from the Department of Housing and Urban Development on how best to utilize funds and programs. Currently, the cost to rent a house or apartment is at an all-time high across the United States, and the wages people earn have not kept up with the increases in housing, food, transportation and other basic necessities. Having shelter for you and your family, a decent place to live, is not a luxury. It's a basic human need that everyone requires and deserves. Too many people face the choice every day between paying the rent or being able to put food on the table or buying medicine for a sick child. That simply should not be happening in America. Once again, I commend the efforts of the House Financial Services Committee, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2786, the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Reauthorization Act of 2007. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 633.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, we have been at war in Iraq for 5 years, longer than we fought World War II. And notwithstanding all of the rosy predictions by this President and his staff, we are now stuck refereeing a civil war. Our soldiers are to be praised; they have done an outstanding job. But our political leaders in Washington, including those in this Congress, should be strongly criticized for acquiescing and going along time and time again. We are told that we need to stay the course for the sake of our standing in the world. But, Mr. Speaker, this war has diminished our standing in the world. Enough is enough. It is time to bring this war in Iraq to an end.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal of spin coming from the White House on why America needs to stay the course in Iraq, and why we must keep the surge going on and on and on, on how victory is near if we simply escalate the number of troops we have in this region of Iraq or another region of Iraq. Enough, Mr. Speaker, enough. It seems the President hasn't read his own National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq. If he had, he would find a grim picture of the political and security reality in Iraq, one quite different from his own. Let me read just a few conclusions from this August 23 report: One, the level of overall violence, including attacks on and casualties among civilians, remains high; Iraq's sectarian groups remain unreconciled; al Qaeda in Iraq retains the ability to conduct high-profile attacks; and to date, Iraqi political leaders remain unable to govern effectively. Two, population displacement resulting from sectarian violence continues, imposing burdens on provincial governments and some neighboring states and increasing the danger of destabilizing influences spreading across Iraq's borders over the next 6 to 12 months. Three, broadly accepted political compromises required for sustained security, long-term political progress and economic development are unlikely to emerge unless there is a fundamental shift in the factors driving Iraqi political and security developments. Mr. Speaker, just the first few pages of the NIE on Iraq should concern everyone. Also on the President's reading list should be the August 30 draft GAO report on Iraq, which also paints a very pessimistic picture of Iraq. It concludes that Iraq has failed to meet all but three of the 18 required benchmarks for political and military progress. Rather than embrace these nonpartisan findings, the White House has actually denounced the GAO report for holding Iraq to too high a set of standards. Mr. Speaker, while the White House speaks of how violence has been reduced in Baghdad, it ignores how the number of Iraqi civilian deaths across the country rose by about 20 percent in July. This is not the time to paint rosy scenarios and declare victory is at hand if only Congress coughs up another $200 billion to cover the costs of the war over the next few months. Mr. Speaker, the President and we in Congress must face the facts. We need a plan on how to leave Iraq in a safe and orderly manner in 2008. We need the President to meet with congressional leaders and map out a concrete plan for how to draw down our forces and leave Iraq over the next 9 to 12 months. It can be done, and it must be done. We can redeploy troops to Kuwait in the surrounding region. We can safeguard the Kurdish north. We can redeploy troops to Afghanistan. And we can bring troops home to their families, friends and communities. We need the Pentagon to provide a realistic plan for withdrawal, one that is logistically sound and can be achieved over the next year. President Bush, with great fanfare, recently invoked the Vietnam analogy to support our continued escalation in Iraq. If anything, Vietnam and Iraq prove that wars are a lot easier to get into than out of. If we want to avoid the haste, confusion and humiliation of our final departure from Vietnam, a withdrawal that occurred almost entirely without planning and hurt U.S. military prestige more than any other single action, then we must plan now for our departure from Iraq. If we fail to plan and control the safe and orderly withdrawal of our forces, then we will surely fail our troops once again, holding them hostage to events on the ground beyond their control. The administration lacked a plan for what to do in Iraq the day after the fall of Saddam Hussein. We must not repeat that mistake when it comes to the welfare and the safety of our troops as they leave Iraq. For far too long, Congress failed to live up to its responsibilities. We must not continue to send blank checks to the White House. Mr. Speaker, this House should not consider the President's supplemental request until we come to an agreement with him on how to bring our troops home in a safe, orderly and timely way. Let me be clear. This means we should not consider on the floor of this House any additional funding for this war until we have a plan to end it. As The New York Times stated last Friday, ``In Vietnam, like Iraq, American Presidents and military leaders went to great lengths to pretend that victory was at hand when nothing could be further from the truth.'' We don't need more spin, Mr. Speaker. What we need is a plan to end the war in Iraq, and we need it now.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. To demand the yeas and nays.