Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, if I could respond to the gentleman from Texas, I don't know what he's talking about. The fact of the matter is that the Democratic budget resolution does not contain a single tax increase. Period. The Concord Coalition stated that the budget resolution does not call for or require a tax increase. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said the House plan does not include a tax increase. The Hamilton Project of the Brookings Institute says the budget would not raise taxes. Mr. Speaker, I sat on the Budget Committee. I had the honor of serving under Chairman Spratt. And I would say to the gentleman from Texas, if he reads the budget resolution, it actually supports the renewal of the middle-class income tax cut. Section 401 of the budget resolution commits the budget to the support of the middle-class tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003, including the child tax credit, the marriage penalty relief, the 10 percent individual income tax bracket, estate tax reform, research and development tax credit, and the deduction of State and local sales taxes. Section 203 of the budget resolution clearly provides a reserve fund for the extension of those tax cuts so long as the legislation complies with the House pay-as-you-go rule. Now, the gentleman from Texas gets up here and brags about the fiscal record of the Republicans in the Congress. Well, the American people, I think, saw through the misplaced priorities of the Republican Congresses, as evidenced by the results of the November election. But so there is no misunderstanding, let me make it very clear to everybody who is watching. We need to correct the fiscal course of the country because the fiscal outlook that we are confronting has deteriorated dramatically over the past 6 years because of the Republicans misplaced priorities. In 2001, the Bush administration inherited a projected 10-year budget surplus of $5.6 trillion. That's $5.6 trillion. Within 2 years, that surplus was gone, and the United States began accumulating an amount of national debt, adding $2.8 trillion to our Federal debt burden since 2001. Now, to make matters worse, most of that debt has been purchased by foreign investors, making the U.S. economy more vulnerable to economic and political instability and political pressure from abroad. So for anyone to get up here and to brag about the Republican record on fiscal matters, I think, to me, defies comprehension. The record is clear. You have messed up the economy of this country in terms of this incredible debt that we have now put on the backs of our kids and our grandkids and our great grandkids. What the Democratic budget is trying to do is restore some fiscal discipline, pay-as-you-go, and to get this country back on the right course. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield 8 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, Mr. Spratt. (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, just because my colleagues on the Republican side say that the Democratic budget raises taxes doesn't mean it's true. Let me repeat that so no one misses this point. The budget resolution that we are talking about does not contain a single tax increase. That is a fact. Sometimes facts are a stubborn thing, but that is the fact. And the Republican spin machine can say whatever it wants; but the fact of the matter is, and I repeat, this budget resolution does not increase any taxes. Secondly, I appreciate the fact that the gentleman from Texas was waxing nostalgic about the Clinton years when President Bill Clinton was the President of the United States and we were getting our fiscal house in order. But what I was talking about was what happened when President Bush became President and we had Republicans in the White House and in the Congress, and that is when we saw the skyrocketing of our Federal debt. You know, budgets do reflect the priorities of a nation. And one of the reasons that I think people decided to vote for change in the last election is because they did not appreciate the priorities that were put forth by the previous Republican Congresses. They did not appreciate our veterans being shortchanged; they did not appreciate the most vulnerable in our country being shortchanged. If anyone has any questions about whether or not we were adequately funding veterans health, just recall the recent scandals of Walter Reed and at so many other of our veteran hospitals all across the country. You know, we voted in this Congress to send our young men and women into war. The least we can do is to make sure that the necessary funding is there to take care of them when they return, and the Democratic budget does that. Let me also say for the record, Mr. Speaker, that notwithstanding all of the flowery language that we've heard from the other side, it is important to remember that in the last 6 years poverty has gotten worse in America. There are more people today than 6 years ago that need to rely on food stamps and other government programs just to get by. So these fiscal policies that have resulted in skyrocketing debt, that have resulted in foreign countries like China purchasing our debt, I don't know how that serves our national interest, have not produced this incredible economic boom that we're hearing today. And I would encourage my colleagues to look at the statistics, to look at the facts, to talk to some of the people who have gone from being in the middle class, who have now fallen below the poverty line. There are far too many people that have done that, and what we are trying to do is to make sure that there is opportunity for everyone. At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. Spratt.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just repeat for the record that section 401 of the budget resolution commits the budget to support the middle-class income tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003, including the child tax credit, marriage penalty relief, the 10 percent individual income tax bracket, estate tax reform, research and development tax credit, and the deduction of State and local sales taxes. Section 203 of the budget resolution clearly provides a reserve fund for the extension of those tax cuts so long as the legislation complies with the House pay-as-you-go rule. I would simply say to my colleagues that under their watch, that many middle-class taxpayers actually saw their taxes go up, because when the Federal Government cut essential programs to States and cities and towns, people saw their property taxes go through the roof. I think one can make an argument that people are paying far too high gas prices right now because of the years that were squandered under the Republican leadership, emboldened to the oil industry and refusing to invest adequately in alternative sources of energy. Mr. Speaker, I would simply say that this is a good budget, and I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the rule and support the budget. Mr. Speaker, if I could inquire how much time is remaining.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me just say that I think there is a reason why the Republicans lost the last election, and that is that the people of this country were fed up with their priorities. They were tired of budget resolution after budget resolution that shortchanged our veterans, that shortchanged our schools, that shortchanged our environment, that shortchanged our senior citizens, that shortchanged health care. As I pointed out earlier, Mr. Speaker, there are more people in poverty today than 6 years ago. There are more people who are food insecure today than 6 years ago. That is not a record of accomplishment that I would want to brag about on the House floor. The budget that Mr. Spratt has brought before us achieves key objectives in six areas. It is fiscal responsibility, defending our Nation, putting our children and families first, growing our economy, preserving our planet, and promoting an accountable and efficient government. Mr. Speaker, we have inherited this incredible budget deficit and this debt from the previous majority. It is not easy to try to clean up this mess, but that is what the underlying budget before us tries to do. I would urge all my colleagues to vote for it. It is the right thing to do. 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. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), I would like to give my colleagues a couple of examples of the kinds of crimes that we're talking about here. In Los Angeles, California, 2003, after seeing him hugging another man on the street, three men attacked Treve Broudy, who was 34 years old, with a baseball bat. The incident left Broudy in a coma. Broudy was also hospitalized for approximately 10 weeks after the attack, and has lost half of his vision and has experienced trouble hearing. In Charlottesville, Virginia, in 1997, James Kittredge was attacked by three young men he offered a ride to outside of a gay club in Charlottesville, Virginia. The men offered to take him to party, but instead they dragged Kittredge out of his car, where they beat him, smashing eight of his ribs and eye socket, urinated on him, put cigarettes out on him and locked him in his own trunk. He was found over a day later. I can go on and on and on with examples of these hate crimes, but this is what we are trying to prevent, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, at this point, I would like to yield 3 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, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 364.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I will insert into the Record at this time a list of endorsements from law enforcement organizations all across the country. I will also submit for the Record the endorsement of the National Education Association, the Religious Action Center of Reformed Judaism, the Matthew Shepard Foundation and the UAW. Local Law Enforcement Hate Crime Prevention Act of 2007 law enforcement support for this legislation This legislation has received bipartisan majority support in Congress. In the last session of Congress, on September 14, 2005, the House of Representatives approved the measure as an amendment to the Children's Safety Act by a vote of 233-199. The Senate has approved the bill on two occasions since 2000, most recently in June, 2004 by a vote of 65-33. Unfortunately, in the past, the House leadership has acted to block approval of this legislation. The measure also enjoys the support of over 210 civil rights, professional, civic, and religious groups, 31 state Attorneys General, former Attorney General Dick Thornburgh, and a number of the most important national law enforcement organizations, including: Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association, Hispanic National Law Enforcement Association, International Association of Chiefs of Police, International Brotherhood of Police Officers, Major Cities Chiefs Association, National Asian Peace Officers Association, National Black Police Association, National Center for Women & Policing, National Coalition of Public Safety Officers, National District Attorneys Association, National Latino Police Officers Association, National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, National Sheriffs' Association, Police Executive Research Forum, Police Foundation. Here's what some of them are saying about the legislation: Police Executive Research Forum ``This measure is critical to helping law enforcement effectively address the ravaging effects on hate crimes on both the victims of these crimes and the communities destabilized by the fear and anger they generate . . . In the past, PERF has opposed efforts to expand the federal government's authority over traditionally local crimes. However, given the unusual nature of hate crimes and the substantial gaps in state laws, PERF believes in a significant federal role in combating hate crimes.''-- Excerpts from letter to Members of Congress from Chuck Wexler, Executive Director, PERF, July 19, 2004. National Sheriffs' Association ``On behalf of the more than 22,000 members of the National Sheriffs' Association I am writing to seek your support for . . . the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act [LLEEA]. Unfortunately, there are situations where state and local authorities are unable to properly investigate these crimes. This legislation overcomes those situations . . . The passage of LLEEA will greatly assist state and local law enforcement agencies in investigating and prosecuting hate crimes.''-- Excerpts from letters to congressional leadership from Sheriff Aaron D. Kennard, Salt Lake City, Utah, President, National Sheriffs' Association, July 21, 2004. Dick Thornburgh, Former U.S. Attorney General ``I would like to express my strong support for the passage of . . . the Hate Crimes Prevention Act . . . From my experiences as a Governor, the Attorney General, and as a parent of a child with a disability, I can attest to the importance of this legislation . . . Please add my name to the list of supporters for the passage of this important legislation.''--Excerpts from letter to the Honorable Orrin G. Hatch, Sept. 29, 1998. International Association of Chiefs of Police ``On behalf of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), I am writing to urge you to vote in support of . . . the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act . . . The passage of the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act will greatly assist state and local law enforcement agencies in investigating and prosecuting hate crimes. The IACP urges you to vote for [the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act] . . .''--Excerpts from letter to the Senate from Daniel N. Rosenblatt, IACP Executive Director, Alexandria, Virginia, July 19, 2004. Albany County Sheriff's Department ``As you know, last week saw the conclusion of the trial of Aaron McKinney for the murder of Matthew Shepard, a case on which we worked day and night for the last year . . . We believe justice was served in this case, but not without cost. We have been devastated financially, due to expenses incurred in bringing Matthew's killers to justice. For example, we had to lay off five law enforcement staff. We do not want the federal take over of hate crimes, but communities like ours must be able to call upon the expertise and resources of the federal government. This approach worked very well in Jasper, Texas in the case of James Byrd Jr. Because of the multiple jurisdiction granted by current federal law related to race-based hate crimes, Jasper was able to access approximately $284,000 in federal Byrne grant money. These grants are only available when a federal jurisdictional basis exists. Presently, unlike race, color, religion and national origin, sexual orientation is not covered. We believe this is a grave oversight that needs to be corrected . . . We respectfully urge you to do everything you can to give law enforcement the tools it needs to fight crime in this country.''--Excerpts from letter to House Speaker Dennis Hastert from Sheriff James Pond and Detective Sergeant Robert DeBree, Albany County Sheriff's Department, Nov. 11, 1999. Eric Holder, Former U.S. Deputy Attorney General ``The enactment of H.R. 1082 [bill number for Hate Crimes Prevention Act, 106th Congress] would significantly increase the ability of state and federal law enforcement agencies to work together to solve and prevent a wide range of violent crimes committed because of bias based on the race, color, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender, or disability of the victim. This bill is a thoughtful, measured response to a critical problem facing our Nation.''--Excerpts from testimony before the House Judiciary Committee hearing on hate crimes, Aug. 4, 1999. Jeanine Pirro, District Attorney from Westchester County,

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a letter signed by 31 State attorneys general, including the Republican attorney general of the State of Washington, in strong support of the underlying legislation. April 16, 2007. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker, House of Representatives, The Capitol, Washington,

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us provides much needed support for local law enforcement agencies in the fight against violent hate crimes. That's why so many law enforcement agencies all across the country are enthusiastically supporting this legislation. That's why 31 State Attorney Generals, including the Republican Attorney General from the State of Washington, supports this bill. Victims have reported an average of 191,000 hate crime incidents annually since the year 2000. Seventy-three percent of Americans support strengthening hate crimes laws. This bill, as I said, is endorsed by virtually every major law enforcement organization in the country. The legislation is also supported by President George H.W. Bush's Attorney General, Dick Thornburg. This legislation is virtually identical to the version approved by a bipartisan majority in the Republican-led 109th Congress. Hate crimes affect more than one individual, Mr. Speaker. It is committed with the intention of terrorizing a group of people or an entire community. Now, we've heard arguments from some on the other side that this bill somehow violates the first amendment. In fact, the measure includes an explicit statement that the bill may not be interpreted as limiting first amendment protections language that is based on the existing Washington State hate crime statute. The provision only applies when a person's conduct, not thought or speech, is being punished. Mr. Speaker, the United States Supreme Court has rejected the claim that a hate crime law is a law against thoughts. The Supreme Court recognized in Wisconsin v. Mitchell that it is common to take motive into account in criminal law. So to those of my colleagues who are worried about protecting bigoted speech, they can stop worrying because this bill, sadly, will not affect that kind of speech. Now, some have argued that this law is an unnecessary extension of the Federal Government. The bill provides support and resources to assist local law enforcement agencies. The majority of hate crimes will still be prosecuted at the State level. The Federal Government only has jurisdiction in certainly limited and extreme circumstances. The Federal Government has the responsibility, Mr. Speaker, to protect all Americans against bigotry and against violent crime. So what we have before us, Mr. Speaker, is relatively simple; you either support providing an expansion of civil liberties and civil rights and civil protections under the law, or you don't. So that is the question that my colleagues have to deal with. I think the answer is simple. I think we should support this legislation. This is a good bill. It should enjoy bipartisanship support because it has in the past. I would urge all of my colleagues to support this rule and to support the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 364 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 364 provides for consideration of H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, except those arising under clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI. The rule provides that the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, modified by the amendment printed in the Rules Committee report, shall be considered as adopted, and the bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against the bill, as amended. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and of the underlying legislation. H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007, is a bipartisan piece of legislation that has already passed the House multiple times with Members from both sides supporting it. In the 109th Congress, this legislation passed as an amendment to the Child Safety Act by a vote of 223-199. And in both the 108th and 106th Congresses, hate crimes legislation passed with bipartisan support. With such a demonstrated history of strong bipartisan support, it should come as no surprise that this bill has also garnered the support of 171 cosponsors, Republicans as well as Democrats. I would like to take note for my colleagues that H.R. 1592 has the support of more than 210 civil rights, education, religious and civic organizations. Equally as important, it has the support and endorsement of the law enforcement community, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the National Sheriffs Association. Mr. Speaker, it makes sense that this bill has attracted such a wide range of support. Hate crimes are a serious problem everywhere. They continue to plague our society, and they happen in every State and in every community. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has documented over 113,000 hate crimes since 1991. In 2005 alone, nearly 7,200 crimes were identified by the FBI as hate crimes. But despite this marked occurrence of violent hate crimes, current law limits the ability of the Federal Government to provide assistance to States and localities to prosecute and investigate these crimes. It is long past time that Congress address these shortcomings. Mr. Speaker, some will claim that this law is not needed. Others will claim that it adversely affects free speech. I strongly, very strongly disagree with both these claims. First, while we have made progress toward equality in many facets of our society, hate crimes continue to spread in cities and towns across the country. The main reason why we have been unable to aggressively pursue and prosecute hate crimes is because law enforcement agencies in our States and towns lack the tools and resources. I'd like to point out that this legislation has been endorsed by 31 Attorney Generals from all across the country, the very people who can attest to how critical this legislation is to stemming hate crime violence and to prosecuting and punishing the perpetrators of violent hate crimes. Secondly, with respect to whether this legislation will have a negative impact on free speech, simply put, it will not. H.R. 1592 does not punish or prohibit in any way first amendment rights. It does not affect name-calling, verbal abuse, hateful expression or hate-filled speech. It only addresses violent criminal acts. In fact, there is a first amendment free expression and free exercise provision explicitly included in this bill. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1592 solely applies to bias motivated violent crimes. It does not infringe upon freedom of speech. It can only be applied to violent crimes that result in death or bodily injury where the motivation was based on the bias against a person's perceived race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability. I want to remind all of my colleagues that behind all of the statistics of hate crimes, there are real people, people who were targeted for violence and who suffered violent attacks simply because of who they are. Let me tell you a story of Lisa Craig, a 35-year old mother of two from my own State of Massachusetts. In 2003, Craig was assaulted on the street by three teenage girls and kicked in the head multiple times, causing her brain to bleed, and requiring 200 stitches in her head. Craig's partner and her two daughters witnessed the attack by these teenagers who, earlier in the evening, had been shouting anti-gay epithets at the couple. Lisa Craig's case is just one of thousands, but it demonstrates the bloody results of hate crimes. We need to prevent hate crimes like the one suffered by Lisa Craig from ever occurring again, and we need to give our State and local law enforcement officers and court officials the ability to prosecute and punish the perpetrators of such violent acts for what they are, hate crimes. Passing H.R. 1592 will enable our police, our prosecutors, our judges and our courts to do just that. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Democratic Caucus, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 368) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the FIRST Robotics team from the Massachusetts Academy of Mathematics and Sciences at WPI for their recent championship victory at the FIRST Championship at the Georgia Dome in Atlanta. The team earned an invitation to this competition after months of demonstrated excellence in competitive play, sportsmanship, and development of partnerships among schools, businesses, and communities. The diligent efforts of these students over the course of 6 weeks enabled them to channel their energy and creativity into the construction of robots while adhering to competition guidelines and design specifications. This final effort was the culmination of months of competitive innovation among over 1,300 teams from across the United States and six other countries. The team was recognized earlier this year with the prestigious Regional Chairman's Award at the FIRST BAE Systems/Granite State Regional in Manchester, New Hampshire, making it the first team in the competition's history to win the award for the second consecutive year. The team has also been recognized with the Tournament Champion's Award and the Motorola Quality Award at the Silicon Valley Regional Robotics Tournament in San Jose, California. FIRST is a not-for-profit whose acronym means ``For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology,'' that was founded by Dean Kamen, a WPI alumnus. The organization provides programs to motivate youth to pursue opportunities in math, science, technology, and engineering, while also building practical life skills. The FIRST Robotics Team from Massachusetts Academy of Math and Sciences at WPI works diligently in the pursuit of knowledge and innovation as they apply it to technology. The team's accomplishments this year illustrate their tremendous hard work, determination, and creativity. These achievements make them role models to their fellow youth and assets to the community at large. I encourage my colleagues to join me in congratulating the team on their extraordinary achievement.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished Chair of the Rules Committee for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I want this war to come to an end now. I had reservations when I voted in support of the supplemental a few weeks ago, and I have misgivings about the conference report that is before us today. I believe very deeply that this war represents one of the biggest blunders in our history and that we must change course and bring it to an end. But, Mr. Speaker, to defeat this conference report tonight would provide President Bush with a victory that he does not deserve and that he has not earned, and it would affirm a disastrous policy in Iraq. A vote against this conference report is a vote to support the status quo, which is essentially a vote to support a failed policy. Since the President decided to escalate the war in Iraq, the violence has gotten worse. This administration has demonstrated a contempt for the American people, who have demanded a change in our Iraq policy. Mr. Speaker, this President is presiding over a policy and a war in Iraq that is making the United States more vulnerable, not more secure. He refuses to listen. He refuses to acknowledge the facts. He refuses to compromise. Now he has threatened to veto this conference report. And if he does so, then this President will make perfectly clear to the American people that the only way this war is going to end, the only way our troops will ever come home to their families and loved ones, the only way the Iraqis will ever be held accountable for governing their own country and ending their sectarian violence, will be if Congress finds a way to end it. Every day it becomes more and more clear that the President has decided to kick the ball down the field to make this war somebody else's problem. Two years ago, President Bush announced his exit strategy for Iraq. He said, ``That's a problem for the next President.'' Mr. Speaker, that is unacceptable and it is false. It is a problem for all of us. None of us in this Chamber wake up each morning in harm's way. None of us stare death in the eye or see our comrades fall to bullets and bombs. Not even the Green Zone provides a sense of security any longer. Instead of demanding reconciliation, we are building walls to keep Shiites away from Sunnis. Every day, thousands of Iraqis are fleeing the horror that has become their country. The best and the brightest are leaving. The average shopkeeper, the next-door neighbor, all are packing their bags and trying to find a way out of town, out of the country, away from the violence, the death and destruction. Mr. Speaker, the reality is that whenever we finally leave Iraq, it will not be pretty. This failed policy has left Iraq with few options. But until we begin to leave, no one has to make the hard choices about how Iraqis are going to live together or die together. Mr. Speaker, this terrible chapter in our history must come to an end, and I urge all my colleagues to join with me in saying to the President of the United States, enough is enough.

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, let me begin by responding to a couple things the gentleman from Washington said. First of all, on the issue of veterans funding, I don't know too many people who will get up and say that the funding under the previous majority for veterans was anywhere near adequate. The fact of the matter is we have more and more veterans each and every day as a result of the wars that we are involved with. The number of disabled veterans has gone up, and we have seen the direct impact of underfunding veterans health with the terrible tragedy at Walter Reed and so many of our other hospitals. That is one of the reasons why, when the Democratic majority took over this place in January, one of the first items of business was to increase veterans health. And in the conference report on the supplemental appropriations bill that is coming before us today, there are billions of dollars more for veterans health. If you want to help veterans, vote for the money. It is not about rhetoric; it is about action. Secondly, in terms of fiscal policies, I think there was a reason for the result in the last elections. I think Americans, Democrats and Republicans, were horrified with the fiscal policies of the previous Republican majority. We went from huge surpluses under Bill Clinton and a huge economic boom under Bill Clinton to now record deficits. We have the largest debt in the history of our country. And I think most Americans, no matter what their party affiliation is, have been justifiably horrified by that result. They want a change. They want fiscal responsibility. That is why we are back to pay-as-you-go, and that is why we are for responsible tax relief. And that is what the Democratic majority is going to pursue. Madam Speaker, the Small Business Lending Improvements Act will go a long way towards strengthening our Nation's small businesses by establishing much-needed improvements to the SBA's primary loan programs. Today we have an opportunity to encourage entrepreneurship, particularly for those who are socially or economically disadvantaged and those who serve our Nation in the Armed Forces, and provide some additional opportunities for small business owners looking to expand. I want to again commend my colleague from New York (Ms. Velazquez) for her leadership in bringing this promising and long overdue legislation to the floor. I think this is a fair rule. Everybody who wanted to offer a germane amendment to this bill could have done so. All the germane amendments are made in order. That is somewhat of a departure from the previous Congress, where we were routinely handed closed rules. So I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule. The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is as follows: (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. I am going to wait with bated breath while the gentleman gives his closing statement. I have no further requests for time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I would like to reclaim my time, if I may. What the gentleman knows full well is that even with an open rule, the Buyer amendment would still not be germane and subject to a point of order by any Member of this House. I mean, we have germaneness rules for a reason. Let me also point out another interesting fact that I think my colleagues should remember. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), during the last Congress, time and time and time again went before the Republican Rules Committee asking for a waiver on an amendment that would repeal the tax cut for the top 1 percent income earners in this country, the multibillionaires, if you will, so that those savings could be put into veterans programs. He needed a germaneness waiver. Time and time and time again, the Republican Rules Committee denied him the right to offer that amendment. Now, I guess my point is that it is a little bit curious that the gentleman voted routinely to uphold the germaneness rules with regard to amendments to help veterans in the past, but now somehow is complaining that we need a different standard now that they are in the minority. Madam Speaker, I would simply say that this is a fair rule. Every germane amendment that was offered is made in order. Anybody could have offered an amendment. And this is something that was very rarely afforded to us when we were in the minority. And I think it is a good rule. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. I am happy to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, let me say at the outset that I always enjoy listening to my colleague from Washington State, Mr. Hastings, both on the floor and in the Rules Committee. I want to respond to a couple of things he said. He talked about the Democrats and taxes. Let me remind him that the biggest tax increase that is looming that could impact small businesses is the alternative minimum tax, or so-called AMT. And the Democratic majority is actually working on a solution so that millions of Americans won't be unfairly burdened with that tax. That is an issue that, when the gentleman's party was in the majority, they chose not to deal with. And the Democrats will deal with that. Let me say one other thing, Madam Speaker. It is always interesting to hear the gentleman from Washington complain about the rule. Let me state for my colleagues, both Democrat and Republican, that every single germane amendment that was offered to this bill was made in order by the Rules Committee. That is something that very rarely happened when the gentleman's party was in the majority. So I think this is a good rule. He complains that a nongermane amendment was not made in order, one that deals not with the issue of loans, which the underlying bill deals with, but instead the Buyer amendment deals with contracting. And the gentleman says that we need to do this for our veterans. Well, I want to do all we can for our veterans, and maybe in the right vehicle we can deal with that issue. But I also want to point out to my colleagues here in Congress that when the gentleman's party was in control, veterans health and veterans benefits were woefully underfunded. I mean, we are dealing with scandals at Walter Reed. We are dealing with scandals all over the country dealing with veterans health because of the inadequacy of the funding that came out of the Republican majority, budget after budget after budget after budget. The Democrats take control and have literally pumped billions of dollars more into veterans programs, including veterans health programs. And I will say to the gentleman from Washington that today he will have the opportunity, in the conference report on the supplemental appropriations bill, to vote for a conference report that adds even billions of dollars more to help our veterans. So if people are concerned about helping our veterans, then they will have an opportunity this afternoon to vote that way.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 92nd anniversary and commemoration of the Armenian Genocide. Yesterday, I had the privilege to join the Armenian-American community of Worcester, Massachusetts, including survivors of the Genocide and their families, and many dignitaries of Central Massachusetts and the Commonwealth at an event remembering the Armenian Genocide and the role it plays in understanding contemporary events. I am submitting today for the Record a copy of the remarks I made at this special commemoration and an article that appeared in the Worcester Telegram and Gazette. Worcester Armenian Genocide Observance I want to thank Father Terzian and the Armenian Church of Our Savior for inviting me to participate in this remembrance--and I'm very pleased to be here with Lt. Governor Tim Murray and the Mayor of Worcester, Konstantina Lukes. But I am especially honored to be here with the Worcester Armenian-American community, survivors of the Armenian Genocide, and their families. There are several reasons why I look forward to this event each year. First and foremost, it gives me an opportunity to reconnect with all of you, the Worcester Armenian-American community, and to thank you for all your fine work and contributions to our city. Second, it is a moment when we recommit ourselves to pressing the United States government to officially recognize the Armenian Genocide. And finally, it provides me each year with a moment to reflect on our world; and on how I as an individual, we as a community, and we as a Nation are responding to genocide and crimes against humanity that, sadly and unbelievably, are carried out nearly every day in some part of the world. I believe that this year there is a very good chance that the U.S. House of Representatives might actually pass H. Res. 106, the Armenian Genocide Resolution. I can tell that this is a real possibility because for the first time in years, I'm receiving materials arguing against the resolution and against the official recognition of the Armenian Genocide. I believe adopting the Armenian Genocide Resolution is the right thing to do: As a matter of morality--and in the name of humanity--the United States should recognize and condemn all genocides. In the name of historic truth--and in honor of the historic role so many American diplomatic personnel and humanitarian and relief workers played in saving lives and condemning the genocide as it was taking place--the U.S. especially should recognize the Armenian Genocide. And in the hope of preventing future genocides--we have to recognize and honor the truth of the past. Denial of the Armenian Genocide--just like denial of the Holocaust--makes future genocides more likely, not less. No Nation, not Turkey or any other country, should be allowed to block the official recognition or commemoration or the teaching of historic truth about the Armenian Genocide. It's ironic that the current Turkish government doesn't seem to realize that the more it denies the Armenian Genocide, the more people begin to think that there really is a connection between the Turks who carried out the Armenian Genocide at the beginning of the 20th century and today's 21st century government. By denying the truth, Turkey undermines its own standing throughout the world, blocks its own acceptance into the European family, and increases regional tensions, especially with neighboring Armenia. Turkey's recognition of the Genocide, its reconciliation with the past, would widely be viewed as the act of a mature democracy, which the world would rush to embrace and reward. This is why America must also officially recognize the Armenian Genocide. A couple of weeks ago, I was in eastern Chad. And the reality of genocide was right before my eyes. There are over 250,000 refugees from Darfur, Sudan living in camps inside Chad. Thanks to the many international and humanitarian workers who have chosen to work and help these survivors of the violence taking place every day in Darfur, the camps are well-organized and efficient. But I'd like to describe for you some of what I saw--and what the Darfur refugees told me about what they had witnessed. I met with individuals and families who had been forced to flee their villages in Darfur. Each had a story about loved ones murdered, homes destroyed, people and family left behind. Many didn't know if some of their family or children were even alive. I talked with one woman who was harvesting onions at a small agricultural site in Camp Gaga, a Darfur refugee camp a couple of hours from the town of Abeche in eastern Chad. She held a tiny baby in her arms as she worked on her onion patch. She told me the Janjaweed attacked her village so quickly and so ferociously that she couldn't even bury her husband who was struck down in the attack; she barely had time to cover him with a sheet before she escaped with her baby and children. She feels guilty and thinks about this all the time. And she now hopes to stay alive and return, someday, to her village. I met with several other men and women, refugees from Darfur, at the Goz Amer Camp near the town of Koukou, Chad. This is a much larger and older camp. Many of the people have been here for 3 years or so. These people were being interviewed for the eyewitness testimony regarding crimes against humanity that some day may be reviewed by the International Criminal Court. I went to eastern Chad to meet and talk with refugees from Darfur because the Government of Sudan wouldn't give me a visa to enter their country. But sometimes things happen for a reason, I believe. Because not only did I learn about the reality of Darfur--I personally discovered Chad. The war in Darfur is bleeding into Chad, as well as other neighboring countries. While I was in Chad, two ``towns''--Tiero and Marena, which actually consist of about 31 small villages--were attacked by ``Janjaweed'' militias operating inside Chad. According to the Chadian survivors who I talked to--they described their attackers as a combination of Sudanese Janjaweed and Chadian Janjaweed allies. They were armed. They were on horseback. The attacks started at about five in the morning, and came in about 3 distinct waves of attack. They shot randomly, at everything and everyone. Women, children, men, livestock, fell to the earth dead or wounded. Homes were burned to the ground. Abandoned crockery, left charred and broken. These Chadians--now internally displaced inside their own country--were gathering in the thousands near Koukou--some estimates were 8,000-9,000. Many walked, some arrived on the backs of burros, and many others were being trucked in by humanitarian groups. U.N. agencies and NGOs were rushing to provide them with emergency aid and to set up an emergency operations site where people could receive food, water, medical aid, and some form of shelter from the relentless heat. These new internally displaced now join the more than 140,000 Chadian IDPs. I had the privilege to watch UNHCR, UNICEF, Doctors without Borders (Medicins sans Frontierres), the ICRC, Italian Aid, and the World Food Program work together to provide emergency relief to these traumatized people. So this year, as we meet to remember and commemorate the 92nd Anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, I'm struggling to find meaning in the words, ``Never Again.'' I'm thankful to this community especially, which has worked tirelessly for nearly a century, to keep alive the historic memory of the Armenian Genocide and to speak out, condemn and organize against the genocides--too many--that mark the past nine decades of human history. Thank you for your persistence. Thank you for your commitment to take action. Thank you for your generosity and compassion. And thank you, once again, for including me in this special program.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 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. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 301 is an open rule with a preprinting requirement providing for the consideration of H.R. 1257, the Shareholder Vote on Executive Compensation Act. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate, controlled by the Committee on Financial Services. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI. The rule makes in order the Committee on Financial Services amendment in the nature of a substitute as an original bill for the purpose of amendment, which shall be considered as read. The rule requires that any amendments to the bill must be preprinted in the Congressional Record on or before Tuesday, April 17, 2007. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this open rule. This is a good, appropriate rule that allows any germane amendment to be debated and voted on by this body, as long as that amendment was preprinted in the Congressional Record. This rule is appropriate because it allows for real debate and for up or down votes on matters related to this bill. I believe this is a good process, and I want to commend both Chairman Frank and Ranking Member Bachus for requesting this rule and for testifying in support of this rule in the Rules Committee yesterday. I also rise in support of the underlying legislation. The purpose of this bill is straightforward. H.R. 1257, the Shareholder Vote on Executive Compensation Act, allows for shareholders of a publicly traded corporation to conduct annual nonbinding advisory votes on the compensation of the corporation's executives. Basically, this bill would allow the shareholders, those with the most vested interests, to express their approval or disapproval of a company's compensation practices. Let me be clear. This bill does not force a company to accede to the vote, nor does it overrule a decision by the board of directors of a corporation. Instead, it allows the shareholders to demonstrate their public approval or disapproval of a corporation's compensation practices. The bill does not allow shareholders to set caps on the size or nature of executive compensation. By allowing for an annual vote by shareholders, H.R. 1257 goes one step beyond the recently enacted regulation by the Securities and Exchange Commission, which only requires that the amount in executive compensation be disclosed. Mr. Speaker, this legislation would require public companies to include this nonbinding shareholder vote in their annual proxy statement to shareholders. An additional nonbinding advisory would also be provided to shareholders if the company awards a new compensation package while simultaneously negotiating the purchase or sale of the company. By taking this step, H.R. 1257 increases accountability, and also enables the SEC to better monitor the executive compensation practices of corporations. I hope that my former colleague from California, Chris Cox, now the Commissioner of the SEC, feels encouraged by this legislation and works toward further protecting shareholder rights. Over the past year, CEOs of major corporations have received multimillion-dollar severance packages, despite falling stocks and market share drops during their tenures. These so-called ``golden parachutes'' highlight the disparity between shareholders' rights and executive compensation oversight. In addition to neglecting shareholders' interests, current executive compensation practices actually hurt the long-term corporate value of a company. Unprecedented growth in executive compensation over the past two decades has taken money out of the pockets of shareholders and compromised the long-term interests of too many companies. According to the Corporate Library, in 2006, the average CEO of a Standard and Poor's 500 company received $14.78 million in compensation. It is only fair that the shareholders, the people who actually foot the bill for severance packages, have the opportunity to express their support or disapproval of their company's executive compensation. H.R. 1257 empowers shareholders and complements the SEC's current regulations regarding executive compensation. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill. 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 301.

Mr. McGOVERN

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