Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), the District of Columbia, a place where there is taxation but not full representation.

Mr. McGOVERN. Let me encourage the gentleman from Georgia to read the rule. The Republicans were offered the right for a substitute. They could have had a substitute that null and voided this entire resolution, and they chose not to. There is an amendment made in order under the rule by the gentleman from Illinois or his designee, which I strongly disagree with, that would essentially gut this entire provision. It would allow no one, with the possible exception of the gentlewoman who represents the District of Columbia, to be able to participate. So the opportunity is there. What the gentleman needs to do is read the rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo). (Ms. BORDALLO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I will let the gentleman proceed.

Mr. McGOVERN. I am it.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York, who was actually born in the territory of Puerto Rico, Mr. Serrano. (Mr. SERRANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. I reclaim my time. Mr. Speaker, I could be here all day, all week, all month and perhaps all year documenting and listing occasion after occasion after occasion where the former majority, I think, broke the rules of this House and did a great disservice to the rules of this House. We have done our best to accommodate the minority on this rule. They had the opportunity to offer a substitute, they declined. An amendment that was brought before the Rules Committee has been made in order. If they don't want to offer it, they don't have to offer it. In fact, if they don't want it in the rule, we have made the offer that if they want to offer an amendment to strike the Kirk provision, they can offer an amendment on this floor and we will be happy to accept it. So I think, Mr. Speaker, that this kind of talk of a bad process, and I should also point out just for the record that the Committee on Rules met in the afternoon, Mr. Dreier, not in the evening. Things have changed. We meet in the light of day, not in the middle of the night anymore. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time. Mr. Speaker, let me restate what I said earlier: This rule allows for consideration of the only amendment offered in the Rules Committee yesterday. We also offered the minority the opportunity for a substitute, which they declined. If this bill is so awful, they could have introduced a substitute to null and void it. Indeed, the amendment that is made in order practically null and voids this entire bill. As someone who has been around for a few years, I do not think I have ever heard so many complaints about a rule that makes in order every single amendment offered in the Rules Committee. But, Mr. Speaker, let me say, the old days are over. I could stand on this floor all day and cite a list of abuses by the former majority. Instead, let me focus on how this Democratic majority has chosen to operate. For the last few weeks, we have heard complaint after complaint that the Republicans were not allowed to offer amendments on our Six for '06 agenda. Now the gentleman from California and others are complaining that we are allowing a Republican amendment. I have got a case of whiplash. Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that by allowing the other side of the aisle to offer amendments and offer a substitute, we have messed up their talking points. Mr. Kirk from Illinois came before the Rules Committee with a thoughtful amendment, offered in good faith. I happened to disagree very strongly with the substance of his amendment, but I support his right to offer it, debate it and get an up-or-down vote in this House. Indeed, I would urge my colleagues to go to the Rules Committee and to read the testimony of Mr. Kirk and also the statements by members of the Rules Committee, Republican members, who urged that this amendment be made in order. This was a hearing, I would remind my colleagues, that happened in the light of day, not in the middle of the night. Let me also remind my colleague there is no obligation for the gentleman from Illinois or anybody else to offer the amendment if they choose not to. It is up to them. Indeed, they could offer an amendment to strike this amendment from the rule if they want and have a closed rule, which they have become accustomed to under their leadership. What we are allowing, Mr. Speaker, is for the Delegates and the Resident Commissioner to the House of Representatives to have a symbolic vote that will not count if they are the deciding margin of victory or defeat of any amendment. We are allowing for the possible consideration of an amendment. If the sponsor Member decides to offer the amendment to this resolution, he can offer it, or his designee. Finally, we are protecting that amendment from all points of order. Let me close, Mr. Speaker, by addressing the rank-and-file Members on the Republican side. We believe that you have a right to be heard. If you come before the Rules Committee with thoughtful amendments, we will give you every possible consideration. We will not be perfect. We will do some things that you will not like, but the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee Ms. Slaughter and all of us on this side of the aisle have made it very clear that we will preside over a more open, democratic process than was the norm for the past 12 years. The rule before us is a product of that commitment, and indeed, it responds to the Member who came before the Rules Committee to offer an amendment. I think that is good form. Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and vote ``yes'' on the rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I move to table the motion to reconsider.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am glad the gentleman respects the courtesies of the decorum of the House. Mr. Speaker, let me also say that it is a little bit difficult for any of us on this side of the aisle to stand here and be lectured about process by the distinguished former chairman of the Rules Committee, to be lectured about transparency, and about how the committee should be run. I recall being in the committee when the USA PATRIOT Act was brought before the Rules Committee, went through a process of regular order, bipartisan process, and then was rewritten in the Rules Committees without anybody knowing what was going on, and then brought to the floor under a very closed process. I remember a special interest provision that magically appeared on a conference report after the report was signed and closed. That is not the process that this new Democratic majority wants to be like.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega). (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, not at this time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify for the record that the Rules Committee did offer the Republicans a substitute, which they declined. The amendment that was brought before the Rules Committee was made in order. And I also would like to say, Mr. Speaker, in response to my friend, Mr. English, that there are 58 million Americans who pay no income tax in this country, just payroll tax. I hope the gentleman is not suggesting that those people shouldn't have a right to vote.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 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, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 86 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, again I would remind my colleagues that the minority was given the opportunity for a substitute and they declined. I would remind my colleagues in the House that the one Member of the minority who came before the Rules Committee and offered an amendment, that amendment has been made in order if he so chooses to offer it. So I guess, maybe because this is not a closed rule, it does not fit into the Republican talking points today, they are a little bit upset. But the bottom line is that we on the majority side have done our best to try to accommodate the minority.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our Democratic leader.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee and the distinguished ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee for bringing to the floor today H. Res. 52, legislation that pays tribute to the Reverend Waitstill Sharp and his wife Martha, the couple who fought genocide. I also want to express my gratitude to both of my colleagues for their eloquent words in support of this legislation. Last year on September 14, I was privileged to join the wife of the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Annette Lantos, at a ceremony held at the U.S. Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C., honoring the Reverend Waitstill and Martha Sharp as they became the second and third Americans to be added to the honor roll of 21,000 Righteous Gentiles and non-Jews whose efforts saved countless lives during the Holocaust. At that ceremony we were joined by family members of the Sharps in honoring the memory of this distinguished husband and wife team. Mr. Speaker, on that same day The Washington Post wrote an article about the Sharps, calling them ``The Couple Who Fought Genocide'' and I would like to share with my colleagues excerpts from that article: ``As the Nazis marched across Europe in 1939 and 1940, a Unitarian minister from Massachusetts and his wife rushed into the coming Holocaust to save Jews and other refugees, including scores of children. When they set out for Europe in January 1939, Germany had seized the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia and refugees were flowing across the continent. The American Unitarian Association asked numerous ministers to go to Europe before Waitstill, 37, and his social worker wife, Martha, 33, agreed. ``Prague, Czechoslovakia, was home to one of the world's largest Unitarian congregations, which was helping refugees of all stripes-- Jews, trade unionists, political dissenters, and others. The Sharps arrived to lend a hand in February 1939, and 1 month later, the city was occupied by the Nazis. ``On March 15, 1939, the day the Germans took Prague, Martha Sharp guided an anti-Nazi leader to asylum at the British Embassy. A few days later, the Reverend Waitstill Sharp arranged for a member of the Czech Parliament to be smuggled out of a hospital morgue in a body bag. The Nazis soon closed the Sharps' office and threw their furniture into the street, but the couple stayed another 5 months and got out just ahead of the Gestapo. ``On their second foray to Europe, they worked in Marseilles, France, and helped smuggle across the Pyrenees into neutral Portugal. One of their close collaborators was Varian Fry, a 32-year-old New York editor who devoted himself to saving European intellectuals and who was the first U.S. citizen placed by Yad Vashem on its `Righteous Among the Nations' honor roll, which includes Oskar Schindler and Raoul Wallenberg. ``Since the Sharps burned most of their records to keep them out of Nazi hands, no one knows how many lives they actually saved. Their grandson, Artemis Joukowsky, III, of Boston, estimates they helped 3,500 refugees in Prague, though it is unclear how many survived. In Marseilles, they pioneered routes that hundreds used to escape. ``Marianne Scheckler-Feder of Laguna Hills, California, has a fuzzy but enduring memory of Martha Sharp, reinforced by a fading black-and- white photograph taken on a sun-dappled street in the French port of Marseilles. `` `I remember a figure. She was a very, very elegant lady. Kind of serious and very concerned. You looked up to her. She demanded respect,' Sheckler-Feder said, who is now 79 years old. ``Thousands of refugees from across Europe had flocked to Marseilles in hopes of gaining passage abroad, only to be interned in work camps when France surrendered to Germany in 1940 and the Nazis set up a collaborationist government in Vichy. Sheckler-Feder was 12. She was one of three Jewish sisters, nearly identical triplets, who had fled with their parents from Vienna, a bare step ahead of the Nazis. ``Marseilles was the end of the road, the end of hope, until they met Martha Sharp. She pestered Vichy officials to issue exit visas for 29 children, including nine Jews. With almost as much difficulty, she persuaded our State Department, which was rife with anti-Semitism at that time, to let the children and 10 adults into the United States. ``Sheckler-Feder and her sisters traveled by train to Lisbon and sailed in December 1940 aboard the Excambion, a ship stripped of all furnishings except sleeping bags, blankets, and pillows to accommodate as many passengers as possible. Their parents eventually followed. ``Sheckler-Feder has no doubt that were it not for Martha Sharp, her family would have perished: `What she did for us is outstanding. It will never be forgotten.' '' Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to have introduced this bill with the esteemed chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Congressman Tom Lantos, along with House Members of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council, Representatives Cantor, LaTourette, and Waxman, the Members of the House congressional delegations representing Rhode Island and Massachusetts, and other bipartisan co-sponsors. I want to thank Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the majority leader and the minority leader, John Boehner, for supporting this consideration on the Suspension Calendar. It is my hope that all of us in this House will not only pay tribute to the memory and legacy of Reverend Waitstill and Martha Sharp but will recognize the example they set. There are many urgent situations confronting our world today where people's lives are in grave danger. Many people in communities even face the threat of genocide, as is the case in Darfur. I hope that we can learn from the Sharps' example that each of us can make a difference, can save the lives of others, and all we have to do is step up and answer the call. It is my hope that the inspiration of the Sharps will compel our government and other civilized governments across this world into taking more proactive and more effective steps to stop the genocide that is now going on in the Sudan. Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to pass this resolution. Again, I want to thank my friend Mr. Lantos and my friend Ms. Ros-Lehtinen for their eloquent words of support.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. This is on the Page Board issue, and the explanation is here. My understanding is that your side has had a copy of this.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Hodes).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just respond to the gentleman from California by saying to him that I appreciated him being in the Rules Committee. I thought his testimony was very thoughtful, and I look forward to his engagement in a lot of these issues as, again, the chairman of the Resources Committee said, this is the beginning, not the end. I just want to point out one thing to him so he understands one thing, and that is, in the last year, when the Republicans were in control of the Congress, there were 34 rules provided to bills that were not reported out of committee. I point that out not to make a partisan point, but simply to kind of illuminate him on the fact that there were a lot of bills that no one ever saw before they came before the Rules Committee. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from Florida, a member of the Rules Committee, Ms. Castor.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the distinguished former chairman of the Rules Committee and the distinguished minority whip have made it clear that they are not impressed with the first 100 hours of this Congress, but the American people are and, quite frankly, that is what counts. Mr. Speaker, at this point I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), who is a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me emphasize once again that Chairman Rahall, in his testimony before the Rules Committee 2 days ago, said that this was the first step, that there are a lot more issues that we need to address as a Congress to achieve our goal of energy independence, and we are going to do that. What we are doing today really is responding to the outcry of the American people who are outraged by the fact that in the midst of being gouged by Big Oil, the previous Congress decided to pass a bill to provide billions of dollars in subsidies and tax breaks to those very companies. So with that, Mr. Speaker, let me yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Hall).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 1 minute to the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter.