Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself 5 minutes. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the political season is upon us. There is just 1 week left before we adjourn for the midterm elections. And what does that mean? It means we will shove important issues to the side and move the sound bite and wedge issues to the forefront. It means that this Congress will become a place where trivial issues are debated passionately and important ones not at all. The legislation before us is not needed, will not be enacted by the Senate, and, quite frankly, is a waste of our time. The so-called Public Expression of Religion Act, which should really be called the ``cheap political expression act,'' is simply another wedge issue brought to the floor by the Republican leadership that will be used as a political tool in the November elections. The bill bars the award of attorneys' fees to prevailing parties asserting their fundamental constitutional rights in cases brought under the Establishment Clause of the first amendment. In other words, the Public Expression of Religion Act will prevent lawyers from being paid for representing people who believe that their religious freedoms have been violated. Now, there is a legal separation of church and State in this country, and we have a court system designed to mediate any dispute over the law, including legal disputes over the separation of church and State. We have an independent judiciary, and they deserve to do the job the framers intended them to do. But this bill does not allow them to do the job the framers empowered them to do. If this bill is enacted, attorneys will stop representing people who feel that their rights are infringed upon because they won't be compensated for doing their jobs. The fact, Mr. Speaker, is that there are some on the other side of the aisle who don't like some of the decisions the courts have handed down in regards to the display of certain religious symbols; and since they cannot win in court based on rights guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States, my good friends on the other side of the aisle are now attempting to rig the process in their favor. Now, there are decisions the courts hand down that I do not agree with, and I can think of a few that the Supreme Court has handed down that I don't agree with. But I do not run to the floor of this House with legislation overturning those decisions. Mr. Speaker, this is a slippery slope that will ultimately cause real legal problems if this bill is ever enacted into law. Mr. Speaker, my colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. Hastings of Florida, said it best during yesterday's hearing on this rule. He said, ``I don't understand what's broken.'' Well, let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, what is really broken. The way we treat people who need the most help in this country is broken. The way we protect our homeland is broken. The independent 9/11 Commission has given us D's and F's in terms of implementing their recommendations to protect the people of this country. It is a broken process. And the way we are perceived around the world is broken. We have never, ever been held in such low esteem. The way the people of this country view the United States Congress is broken. We have never had lower ratings than we do right now, because people are fed up with the things that are being brought to this floor. Instead of addressing the more important and pressing issues, we are forced by the Republican leadership to debate and vote on a bill restricting attorneys' fees. Where, Mr. Speaker, is a clean bill increasing the minimum wage? The Federal minimum wage is stuck at $5.15 an hour, and 9 years ago was the last time we raised the Federal minimum wage. Yet this Congress has given itself nine pay increases. Where is the legislation implementing the rest of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations? Where is the Labor- HHS-Education appropriations bill? Mr. Speaker, we shouldn't adjourn before we consider these bills; and bringing up another bill, attacking lawyers for doing their job, does nothing to address these problems. I urge my colleagues to reject this partisan political legislation, this legislation that is not needed, and instead demand that the leadership of this House bring to the floor meaningful legislation. I would also urge my colleagues to defeat this rule. It is another closed rule. Democracy is dead in this House of Representatives. I cannot remember the last time we had an open rule. There is no reason why this should be a closed rule. Mr. Speaker, I will insert in the Record a number of letters from individuals and organizations that are opposed to this legislation. First, a letter signed by a number of religious and civil rights organizations, including the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, the American Jewish Committee, the American Jewish Congress, the Anti-Defamation League, the Baptist Joint Committee, People for the American Way, the Interfaith Alliance, Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, and a whole range of other organizations opposed to this. I would also like to insert in the Record a letter opposing this legislation signed by the leaders of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, September 18, 2006. Dear Representative: On behalf of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR), the nation's oldest, largest, and most diverse civil and human rights coalition, we urge you to oppose the ``Veterans' Memorials, Boy Scouts, Public Seals, and Other Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2006'' (H.R. 2679). H.R. 2679 would bar attorney's fees to parties who prevail in cases brought under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It would also make injunctive and declaratory relief the only remedies available in such cases. H.R. 2679 is unprecedented. It would, for the first time, single out one area of constitutional protections under the Bill of Rights and prevent its full enforcement. It would greatly undermine the ability of citizens to challenge Establishment Clause violations, as legal fees often total tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars, making it difficult to impossible for most citizens to pursue their rights without the possibility of recovering attorney's fees. In addition, because a prevailing party would not even be able to recoup court costs, it would prevent most attorneys from even taking cases on a pro bono basis. By deterring attorneys from taking Establishment Clause cases, H.R. 2679 would leave many parties whose rights have been violated without legal representation. As such, it would effectively insulate serious constitutional violations from judicial review. It would become far easier for government officials to engage in illegal religious coercion of public school students or in blatant discrimination against particular religions. If the rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution are to be meaningful, every American must have full and equal access to the federal courts to enforce them. The ability to recover attorney's fees in successful cases has long been an essential component of this enforcement, as Congress has recognized in the past. As such, we strongly urge you to oppose H.R. 2679. Thank you for your consideration. If you have any questions, please contact Rob Randhava, LCCR Counsel, at 202- 466-6058 or randhava@civilrights.org. Sincerely, Wade Henderson, Executive Director. Nancy Zirkin, Deputy Director.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) 3 minutes.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me read a line from a letter that was sent to all Members of Congress from the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Freedom. They write: ``The protections of the first amendment, however, are not self-enforcing. If someone is forced to sue the government to enjoy their constitutional rights, justice and fundamental fairness dictate that they be able to recover the legal fees expended to do so.'' Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, Washington, DC, September 12, 2006. Dear Representative: The Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty (BJC) urges you to vote NO on H.R. 2679, the so-called ``Veterans' Memorials, Boy Scouts, Public Seals, and Other Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2006.'' The bill recently passed out of the Judiciary Committee and could be on the floor as early as this week. The BJC is a 70-year-old education and advocacy organization dedicated to the principle that religion must be freely exercised, neither advanced nor inhibited by government. Our mission stems from the historic commitment of Baptists to protect religious freedom for all. We oppose this legislation that seeks to limit access to the federal courts for individuals seeking the enforcement of the Establishment Clause. To prohibit the recovery of attorney's fees and limit the remedy available to injunctive and declaratory relief would essentially shut the courthouse door to many who seek to defend our first freedom. Enforcement of the First Amendment is essential for the defense of religious freedom. The protections of the First Amendment, however, are not self-enforcing. If someone is forced to sue the government to enjoy their constitutional rights, justice and fundamental fairness dictate they be able to recover the legal fees expended to do so. Despite the claims of the bill's sponsor, this legislation does not promote the expression of religion. Instead, the bill undermines fundamental constitutional protections that have provided for a great deal of religious expression in the public square. The Establishment Clause exists to protect the freedom of conscience and to guard against government promotion of religion, leaving religion free to flourish on its own merits. This point was well-stated by former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in her concurring opinion in McCreary County, Kentucky v. ACLU (2005). She noted, ``Voluntary religious belief and expression may be threatened when government takes the mantle of religion upon itself as when government directly interferes with private religious practices.'' Governmental entities should be encouraged to uphold constitutional values, not invited to ignore them. Yet, passage of H.R. 2679 would encourage elected officials to violate the Establishment Clause whenever they find it politically advantageous to do so. By limiting the remedies for a successful plaintiff, this measure would remove the threat that exists to ensure compliance with the Establishment Clause. We urge you to oppose H.R. 2679. The bill is an assault on an essential constitutional freedom. If passed, it would greatly harm religious freedom and set a dangerous precedent for other constitutional protections. Sincerely, K Hollyn Hollman, General Counsel. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to our next speaker, the gentleman from Georgia in his opening remarks, you know, talked about our veterans in the context of rationalizing a vote in favor of this bill. So let me just talk for a second about our veterans. One of the things that is particularly frustrating to so many of us on this side is that here we are, about to adjourn on Friday or Saturday, and we have not done what we promised to do for our veterans. The Democratic leader, Nancy Pelosi, and almost every Democrat has sent a letter to President Bush complaining about his administration's record of underfunding the VA by at least $9 billion over the last 6 years. And the budgets that he has submitted this year reduce veterans funding by $10 billion over the next 5 years. If we want to honor our veterans, then we should be debating and we should be enacting legislation to fund the VA, to give them the health care benefits and the protections that they are entitled to, to making sure that we have a military construction bill that is adequately funded so the families of our veterans and our soldiers do not have to live in substandard housing. It is frustrating. I mean, it takes my breath away that you waste the time of the Members of this House on something like this and you turn your back on the fact that we are underfunding programs to benefit our veterans. You want to talk about veterans. Let us talk about veterans. And, Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record at this point the letter that our Democratic leader and every Democrat has signed to the President complaining about his horrendous record in supporting our veterans. 200 House Democrats Urge President Bush To Provide Necessary Funding for Veterans' Health Care Washington, DC.--House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and 199 House Democrats sent the following letter to President Bush today urging him to provide the necessary funding for veterans' health care in his FY2008 budget. Below is the text of the letter: September 25, 2006. Hon. George W. Bush, The President, The White House, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. President: As your administration continues to formulate its FY 2008 budget submission, we write to request that you provide the necessary funding for the Department of Veterans' Affairs (VA) health care system and related benefits programs. Unfortunately, we believe it is necessary to express our serious concern in this matter due to your administration's record of under-funding the VA by at least $9 billion over the last 6 years. We are particularly concerned about veterans funding next year and in the future as your budget submission this year reduced veterans' funding by $10 billion over the next 5 years. Providing for our military veterans and their families is a continuing cost of war and should be an important component of our national defense policy. Indeed, President George Washington recognized this point, saying, ``[t]he willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional to how they perceive the Veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their nation.'' Mr. President, the time is right for your administration to change course and fully fund the VA, cease efforts to shift the costs of health care onto the backs of veterans, and finally recognize and implement the concept of `shared sacrifice' with respect to the federal budget. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan along with the aging of our World War II, Korea and Vietnam War veterans have increased demand for VA services. However, year after year you request inadequate funding for veterans' health care. Each year your budget submission includes proposals to increase veterans' co-payments and fees, essentially taxing certain veterans for their health care. Each year your VA budget fails to request what is needed and relies on accounting gimmicks such as ``management efficiencies'' and inaccurate health care projections. Such efforts are transparent as the true consequences of your administration's budget flaws are being realized by current and future veterans. Indeed, recently VA officials themselves acknowledged that greater funding was needed to care for our servicemembers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan suffering from mental health disorders and traumatic brain injuries. Mr. President, during your tenure, health care waiting lines have increased, appointments and medical procedures delayed, more than 250,000 veterans have been turned away from entering the VA health care system, and disability and education claims backlogs have grown to unreasonable rates. Moreover, Congress has been forced to add billions of dollars in supplemental VA funding due to embarrassing funding shortfalls. What we request of you and your administration is simple-- provide funding in your FY 2008 budget submission to ensure that our servicemembers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan and the heroes from our previous conflicts receive the care and benefits they have earned and deserve. Without question, Mr. President, the federal budget is a reflection of national policies and ultimately a reflection of our moral priorities. Please join us in working to provide the necessary resources in the fiscal year 2008 budget to fully fund the VA and to take care of our veterans and their families. Sincerely, Nancy Pelosi, House Democratic Leader. Lane Evans, Ranking Member, Veterans Affairs Committee. 198 House Democrats. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

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

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Massachusetts and the gentleman from Texas for making clear what this bill is trying to do, which is to undermine the Constitution. It is frightening to see what could potentially happen should the other side gain seats in the next election. I also think it is frustrating and I think it is offensive that we all know this bill is going nowhere and that we are taking our time up debating this when we should be debating ways to improve the quality of life for our veterans and raising the minimum wage and a whole bunch of other things. One final thing. We have heard the word democracy mentioned several times over there. All the rules in this Congress that have been reported out by the Rules Committee, with the exception of appropriations bills, have been closed, with the exception of one bill. It is about time we had a little democracy in this House of Representatives. If you respect the Constitution and you respect this institution, we need to have a different process.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I just would like to respond by making a couple of points. I have heard a number of people get up here and say they strongly support a rule. How can you strongly support a closed process? How can you not be in favor of allowing Members of this House, who have various concerns about this bill and different opinions about this bill and different opinions about how we can best deal with some of these very delicate issues, how can you be proud and strongly in support of a process that says that nobody has any right to come here and make any suggestions and offer any amendments? I find that appalling. I find it appalling. And the fact of the matter is this bill amends the Senate bill. The Senate bill was a bad bill. This makes it even worse. And somehow to claim that what we are doing is trying to make the lives of troubled teenaged girls easier in dealing with horrible circumstances, I mean, does anybody believe that a young girl who is a victim of incest or a young girl who has been raped by her stepfather or her brother is going to feel that she can go to her mother? Maybe. But, in many cases, I don't believe that is what will happen. So you are taking a tragic situation and adding more tragedy to it. So I find that puzzling, that we have people coming to the floor telling us how this is the right thing to do and that we should somehow praise this process that closes off any amendments and any real debate. This is a bad bill, and it is a bad process under which it is coming to the floor. I don't care what you believe on the issue of choice. The fact of the matter is this notion that these bills should come to the floor under closed rules I think is just wrong. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me close by once again urging all Members of this House, Democrats and Republicans, to vote ``no'' on this rule. Vote ``no'' on this rule regardless of what you believe about the underlying bill, because we have a broken process in this House of Representatives. It is wrong for a bill like this or even the previous bill, bills that are controversial, to come to this floor under a closed process. It is wrong. That has become a pattern in this House of Representatives. In this Congress, with the exception of appropriation bills, every bill that has come to this floor has been under a restricted process with the exception of one open rule. What a horrendous record. That is not good for this democracy. That does not result in good legislation. It is an insult to all of the Members of this House, Democrat and Republican, who have good ideas who want to be able to legislate. That is what we are sent here for. If we want this to end, Members of both sides of the aisle need to stand up and have the guts to vote ``no'' on some of these closed rules. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, this rule will allow the House to consider an amendment in the nature of a substitute to S. 403, the Child Custody Protection Act. It provides for only one hour of debate and, as usual, it is closed to any amendments. I would appeal to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle as a matter of principle to vote against this rule. There is an addiction with this leadership to close processes, and it has to stop. This is not good for our democracy, this is not what this House of Representatives is about, and unless people on both sides of the aisle start coming together to vote no on these closed rules, you are going to see more and more closed rules. So let me begin by again urging all my colleagues to vote against this closed rule. Mr. Speaker, the other side of the aisle would like us to believe that their bill only has in mind the needs of desperate and troubled teens. If that were genuinely the case, if they were indeed truly interested in children's welfare, then this House would have already passed legislation to provide America's young men and women with comprehensive pregnancy prevention and education. As a father, I would like to think that we live in a world where incest, rape and unintended pregnancies did not occur. Sadly, Mr. Speaker, that is simply not the case. All too often, young women find themselves in difficult situations with few, if any, sympathetic people to turn to for advice. Like all my House colleagues, I would hope that the first person to come to mind would be a parent. But, Mr. Speaker, every single Member of this Chamber knows that that is not always the case. Research shows that at least 60 percent of minors considering an abortion freely turn to and involve their parents. Those who do not, however, are often victims of violence and have multiple reasons for not doing so. Currently, 23 States have some type of parental involvement laws, including my own State of Massachusetts. Twenty-seven do not. This bill pretends to open the lines of communication between parents and teens, but daily we are shown examples of parents who not only may not know what is best for their child but who may themselves be part of the problem. I am reminded of Katherine Hancock Ragsdale, a Episcopal priest from Massachusetts who spoke before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2004. She recounted a story of a young girl who became pregnant as a result of date rape. Afraid to tell her father, the girl went to her school nurse. The nurse agreed that it was in the girl's best interests not to tell her father for fear of the girl's safety. While driving an hour into Boston, Reverend Hancock Ragsdale chatted with the girl, who divulged that she felt very guilty about becoming pregnant. Compassionate about these feelings of guilt, the Reverend spoke with the girl about the incident. She told the priest about ``a really cute boy'' from her school she had met and who had asked her out. He asked her to have sex and she refused. He asked her again and again. Then he pushed her down and forced himself on her. Since he did not threaten her with a weapon or cause any bodily harm, she did not know to call it rape. She blamed herself for not knowing he wasn't a nice guy and she blamed herself for getting pregnant. Reverend Hancock Ragsdale offered solace and advice. In her most desperate hours, this girl was able find the comfort she so desperately needed. In addition to providing emotional support, the Reverend was able to help this girl fill out the mountains of paperwork and fill the necessary prescriptions. The advice and guidance a child would hope to receive from a parent was administered in this case by a trusted spiritual leader. Mr. Speaker, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association, the American College of Physicians all, all agree that mandatory parental consent notification can be highly detrimental to young women. Shouldn't we be inviting the experts in health care to help us in drafting and making these recommendations and protocol? Instead, we come to the House floor under a closed rule, stand on our soapboxes, and declare that we know what is best for every single child under every single circumstance in America. Mr. Speaker, my friends on the other side of the aisle will claim that this bill makes improvements to the Senate bill, that this bill provides protections for victims of incest, that this bill is somehow good policy. The truth is this bill weakens an already bad Senate bill. While it is true that the Sensenbrenner amendment would preclude an incestuous parent from suing a person who accompanies a minor to a doctor out of State for abortion care, this bill still makes it a Federal crime for anyone other than a parent to accompany a teenaged incest survivor for abortion care out of State. In other words, grandma can go to jail for years just for taking her granddaughter across State lines to abort a pregnancy caused by the young girl's father, but the father can't sue the grandmother in court. Who in this Chamber believes that a child should be forced to go forward with a pregnancy caused by her father or brother or her uncle or her stepfather? I wish I never had to think about such scenarios, but they occur all too frequently. And it would be foolish for us to compound the horror of this child by joining all the other adults who turned a blind eye to her desperate situation. Yes, we should reduce the number of children having sex. Yes, we should reduce the number of unintended pregnancies. Yes, we should all work together to reduce the number of abortions. But this bill does not address these issues. Mr. Speaker, there is a reason we are considering this bill one week before the House adjourns for the midterm elections: Politics. It is the political season, and anything that gets the juices flowing on the so-called hot button issues is fair game. But that is not the way we should be legislating. This isn't the first time the sensitive issue of abortion will be used for political purposes, and it won't be the last, and I urge my colleagues to reject politics as usual and defeat this closed rule. Even if there are individuals in this House who are sympathetic in terms of supporting this bill, again, reject this rule. This habit of closing everything down, of basically locking out democracy has to end, and Members of both sides need to have the guts to stand up and vote ``no'' on these rules. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York, the ranking member on the House Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to join with my colleague from Massachusetts, Congressman Barney Frank, in paying tribute to a great man, Leo Diehl, who recently died. He served as Tip O'Neill's right-hand man and was a great counselor not only to Tip, but to so many people who served in this Congress during those years. Those of us who were members of congressional staff remember him with great fondness and great respect. The great people who serve in this institution are not just the people who get elected, but often those who serve those who are elected. Leo Diehl was a wonderful man. The world has lost a great person.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, millions of Americans and millions of people around the world are outraged at the genocide taking place in Darfur. Hundreds of thousands of people in Darfur have been murdered by the Sudanese military and government-supported militias. Millions have been forced from their homes, their villages destroyed. Men, women and children left homeless have died from hunger and disease as they are forced to wander, hoping to find someplace that will keep them safe. Women and girls, many of them children, have been raped. International workers providing humanitarian relief have been abused, and some have even been murdered. The world calls it genocide, the United States of America calls it genocide, and still it is allowed to continue. Mr. Speaker, we are once again at yet another critical crossroads in how we deal with ending the genocide in Darfur. On Tuesday, in his speech before the General Assembly of the United Nations, President Bush appointed Andrew Natsios as his Special Envoy for Sudan, providing the U.S. once more with a high-ranking official charged solely to focus on the crisis in Darfur. President Bush also called on the U.N. to act on Security Council Resolution 1706, authorizing a U.N. peacekeeping force in Darfur. Yesterday the African Union Peace and Security Council voted to extend the mandate of the AU peacekeeping force into Darfur, which had been set to expire at the end of next week. I wish I could celebrate, Mr. Speaker, but we can't. The situation in Darfur grows more desperate every day. Fighting has intensified. The Sudanese Government has renewed aerial bombing. Many humanitarian aid groups have had to pull out, leaving hundreds of thousands of people without food and water. Appointing a U.N. envoy is an important step, but only the deployment of a U.N. peacekeeping force will bring some measure of security to the suffering people of Sudan. We cannot afford to let the AU peacekeeping force to remain underfunded, underequipped and undertrained. But the AU forces only have 7,000 boots in the ground, and the region of Darfur is about the size of France. We need a U.N. force with a strong, clear mandate to protect the defenseless people of Darfur on the ground as soon as possible. Security Council Resolution 1706 does not say that we have to wait for Khartoum's permission to deploy it. We need an enforced no-fly zone over Darfur, most likely coordinated by NATO, so we can put a stop to Khartoum's aerial bombing and its air support of Janjaweed militia attacks against villages and refugee camps. We need the United States Senate to support the House-passed Darfur Peace and Accountability Act so that we can get that critical litigation to the President's desk as quickly as possible. We need universities and State and local governments to divest their public funds from company stocks that do business with the Sudanese Government. The Senate should not strip this provision from the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act, and I encourage all of my colleagues in the House to cosponsor the bill in support of divestment that Congressman Barbara Lee of California introduced today. Mr. Speaker, the House has acted and spoken in a unified bipartisan voice to end the violence and genocide in Darfur. I would like to thank my House colleagues Representatives Donald Payne, Frank Wolf, Mike Capuano, and Tom Tancredo and so many others who have been leaders in calling attention to and taking action on the crisis in Darfur. But most of all I want to thank the American people, who, in their churches, synagogues, temples and mosques, on college campuses and the local community centers, have organized and mobilized to make sure that the President and this Congress get the message that we have not done enough so long as the killing continues. Mr. Speaker, we must do more. We must end the genocide. We must protect the people of Darfur, and we must do it today

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Madam Speaker, immigration and border security are not new issues. These issues have been around for a while. They are serious issues, but they have been issues that have been ignored by this Republican leadership and this Republican Congress for years. Notwithstanding the fact that President Bush has challenged us to come up with comprehensive immigration reform, which also includes tight border security, and notwithstanding the fact that this Congress passed what I believe is an objectionable immigration reform bill and the Senate has passed a more acceptable immigration reform bill and we are supposed to go to conference and work out the differences and produce a comprehensive immigration reform bill, as the President has requested, the leaders of this House have chosen to do nothing, not a thing. So while many of us may disagree on some of the issues, this is a high priority for all Members of Congress. But some of us are questioning, why not do what we are supposed to do? Why not go to conference and work out the differences and come out with a comprehensive immigration reform bill that deals with border security and that deals with the issue that a lot of people are concerned about, what do you do with the 12 million people here in the United States who are undocumented? Madam Speaker, the rule before us and the bills that will be considered if this rule is adopted is not about border security and immigration. That is not what we are doing here today. For those who are watching, this is not about real legislative progress. No, Madam Speaker, this rule and these bills are about politics. It is about a press release and trying to convince the voters that we in this Congress are actually doing something when, in fact, we are doing nothing. Now, before my friends on the other side of the aisle roll their eyes and say, there he goes again, let me urge them to look at the calendar. The Republican leadership cancelled votes for tomorrow and plans to adjourn for the elections next Friday, September 29. The Senate is following a similar schedule. That gives us 1 week to consider these bills in both Chambers, pass and reconcile them before next Friday. Now, it is not impossible, but the truth is there are competing comprehensive immigration and border security bills that have been passed by the House and Senate, as I have mentioned. The House passed its bill on December 16, 2005, and the Senate passed its version on May 25, 2006, but again, this House has refused to go to conference. It is puzzling because the Republicans, Madam Speaker, control the White House, the Republicans control the House of Representatives, and the Republicans control the Senate. One would think that since the Republicans control everything, they can get along with each other and actually move important legislation forward. Madam Speaker, what we see on the issue of immigration reform and border security, quite frankly, is a failure of leadership. You have a dismal record on protecting our borders, a dismal record on dealing with illegal immigration. This is a failure of being able to legislate, to be able to do your job. Instead, we are here again with another set of immigration and border security bills. Let us be honest with the American public. This is not a serious effort to legislate. No, Madam Speaker, this is about election politics. This is about the Republican leadership in the House trying to appeal to the cheap seats and gain some political points 1 week before we adjourn for the November election. The gentleman from Georgia mentioned with great pride this legislative accomplishment that we passed last week, the border fence security bill which the Senate is now dealing with. It is important to point out to the American people that while it sounds nice, there is no money in it. There is no money to provide for the construction of such a fence. The chairman of the Homeland Security Committee before the Rules Committee last week could not even tell me how much it was going to cost, but we know it is going to be hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions of dollars. So we pass a bill saying we want to do this, but no money. Guess what? Without the money, you cannot build it. So what are we really doing here? Are we protecting the borders, or are we trying to put on a show for the American people before elections that somehow we are doing something meaningful when, in fact, we are not? We are wasting time. The American people want comprehensive, compassionate immigration reform, and they want strict border security plans, not partisan legislation and not just a show to imply that somehow we are doing something when, in fact, we are not. Madam Speaker, for 5 years the Republican-controlled House, Senate and White House have failed to move forward on comprehensive immigration and border security. Done nothing. We have a crisis today. It is a serious crisis in border security because Republican infighting has crippled anyone's ability to enact comprehensive reform. Madam Speaker, with 1 week left before we adjourn, we should be considering meaningful legislation that will actually affect people's lives today. Where is a clean bill increasing the minimum wage? The Federal minimum wage is at $5.15 an hour. It has been that way for 9 years. I mean, how can you live on $5.15 an hour? We need to pass an increase in the minimum wage, not a minimum wage increase tied to a tax break for millionaires, but let us all agree that $5.15 an hour is not enough for somebody to live. They cannot get out of poverty on $5.15 an hour. Why can we not pass a clean minimum wage bill today? That would be something meaningful. That would impact people's lives today. We had time this year to vote ourselves a pay raise here in the Congress. Do you not think we could take a few minutes and pass a pay raise for those workers who are earning $5.15 an hour? Where is legislation implementing the rest of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations? The gentleman talks about homeland security and the need to protect our border security. The nonpartisan 9/11 Commission has given this Congress Ds and Fs on implementing homeland security legislation. We should be ashamed of ourselves. We should be ashamed of ourselves that we have not enacted all of those recommendations. We need to do that. We could do that today. We should stay in session to tomorrow and do it. Where is the Labor-HHS appropriation bill? Where are some of the other important pieces of legislation? Madam Speaker, the truth is that this Republican leadership has proven that they are incapable of running the House of Representatives. Their priorities just do not mesh with those of the American people. Bringing divisive bills to the floor to be used as political ammunition in the upcoming elections is not leadership, but time and time again it is how the Republican leadership in the House operates. Instead of doing what is right for the American people, they continue to do what they think is necessary to be reelected. Madam Speaker, the American people are sick and tired of business as usual. It is time for a change in leadership in this House. It is time for a new direction. One other thing, Madam Speaker, this is a closed rule. It is a closed rule, which means you cannot amend it. You have to take it as is. No amendments are in order, not one. If these issues are so important, why can Members not have the opportunity to deliberate and to legislate, to be able to offer amendments? Why can we not amend these bills? Why does this have to be brought up under a closed process? This is one rule we are debating on which is a closed rule, but really it is three closed rules because there are three separate bills we are going to be taking up and all of them under a closed process; you cannot amend them. Now, it is not surprising that it is being brought to the House in this manner because democracy is dead in the House of Representatives. This place is run poorly and cynically. It has lost the trust of the American people. Every public opinion poll out there shows that we are held in the lowest esteem possible. People have had it. They know the way this place operates. They want this to be the people's House, not the House where a few special interests get to call the shots. Madam Speaker, over the last several years, the Democrats have tried to offer amendments to various bills to improve our border security. Over the last 5 years, if these amendments were adopted, there would be 6,600 more Border Patrol agents, 14,000 more detention beds and 2,700 more immigration and enforcement agents along the border that now exists. That would be a positive thing if those things were adopted, but each and every time they have been objected to by the Republican majority in this House. They have been against increasing Border Patrol agents, against increasing detention beds, against more immigration enforcement agents along our border that now exists. Instead, we get a fence bill that is not paid for. Instead, we get these bills that are before us today that in all likelihood are going nowhere before we adjourn for Congress. This is not the way we should run the House of Representatives. This is not the way to deal with border security issues and immigration reform. This is cynical what is going on here today. This is a rifleshot approach to a problem that needs a comprehensive approach. We need to do so much better. So I am asking my colleagues to defeat this rule. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, let me again point out to everybody in this Chamber that the Republicans have controlled this place for a long time, and for the last 5 years, they have even controlled the White House. It is puzzling to me why they are all lamenting that we need to get things done when they have been in charge. Why can they not work with each other? Why can you not get things done? The gentleman from Georgia talked about this comprehensive immigration bill. The one in the House he voted for. The one in the Senate he may not like. When the Senate passes a bill, and the House passes a bill, in this case Republican control both Houses, you get together, work out the differences and come up with a compromise. You know, we should have a conferees meeting and work out that compromise and do what you are supposed to do, your job. This is not a radical or controversial idea. Let's work it out; let's do it right. And he has yet to explain why all this has to be brought up under a closed process. Why can't we open this to amendments? We proposed last night in the Rules Committee, the Democrats, that this be an open rule, that Members be able to come down and amend this as they see fit. And that was voted down along party lines; all the Democrats voted for an open process, the Republicans as usual stuck together and voted to shut this process down. That is objectionable. This is so important, we should be able to, it should be open to amendments to any Member. You know, again, I would say to the gentleman from Georgia, Democrats, if you would follow our lead and you had adopted the amendments that we proposed over the last 5 years, there would be 6,600 more Border Patrol agents, there would be 14,000 more detention beds, and 2,700 more immigration enforcement agents along our border than now exist. That, to me, would have been a positive accomplishment. But you rejected all that time and time again. So I object to the manner in which you are bringing these bills up. This is all about politics. This is about trying to imply that you are doing something when you are not. And I object, once again, to a closed process. We need a little democracy in the House of Representatives. This should be an open process; it should be open to amendments. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, first let me say to my colleague, the chairman of the Rules Committee, that I am glad he can point to an instance where he has worked with a Democrat. My question remains, why can't Republicans work with Republicans? The comprehensive Senate immigration bill has a fence provision in it. And if the Senate and the House can go to conference and start working out these differences, he could get his fence and we could also get a lot of other issues solved as well.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Again, it is frustrating that when the President of the United States is urging us to approach this issue in a comprehensive way, that the Republican leadership of this House can't get together with the Republican leadership of the Senate and address a whole range of issues. I think it is also important to point out so that there is no misunderstanding for those who may be observing these proceedings that, even if the Senate passes the so-called fence bill, they should be under no illusion that all of a sudden a fence is going to be built along the southern border of this country. The fact of the matter is there is no money for it. This is an authorization, not an appropriation; and nobody has been able to identify where the money is going to come from. The other thing is, again, I go back to what I said before. We need more border security agents on the border right now. We need more detention beds. We need more immigration enforcement agents along the border. We have tried, we have tried over and over and over again to get the majority to allow us just the right to offer amendments to be able to address some of these issues and have been rejected over and over and over again. So I would simply restate what I said in the very beginning, and that is that what is going on here today is somewhat cynical, because I think the other side knows that at least with the three bills that we are talking about here today, the chances of them being enacted by the Senate are almost zero between now and a week from Friday; and we are not going to accomplish anything except a press release. And at the same time, we are not addressing the challenge that President Bush has put before us, which is comprehensive immigration reform. Madam Speaker, I yield 6 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.)