Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I do not object to this rule that will allow for the consideration of a number of suspension bills, and I expect that these bills, all of them, will be approved if not unanimously certainly overwhelmingly by this House. As we gather here today, the Sunday before Christmas and Chanukah, it is the process and the way the Republican leadership are running this House that I strongly object to. These last few days, in fact the entire year, I think is a great example of how not to run a government. Sometime today we expect to consider and vote on the Defense appropriations bill. No one will have time to read and examine the final product. We will not know what last-minute goodies are tucked into the bill. Mr. Speaker, we read news reports that drilling in the Arctic will be in the bill, but we do not know if ANWR is included because we have not yet seen it. And what drilling in Alaska's wilderness has to do with the Pentagon is beyond my comprehension, but there are some in the Republican leadership who do not care about the regular process and want to tuck this in the Defense bill because they know it cannot be enacted on its own. We also do not know exactly what else is attached to the Defense appropriations bill. Is there funding for Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma? And if so, what are the details? Will there be funding for the prevention of a possible avian flu pandemic? Are there campaign finance reform provisions included in any of these bills? And if so, who approved them? And then there is the Defense authorization bill, which has been held up for much time because the White House did not want language in it that banned torture. This is the United States of America, Mr. Speaker. If we stand for anything, it is out loud and foursquare for human rights. And torture is something that we, as a civilized society and as a decent people, should reject. Now, the President, from news reports, has apparently now accepted the language by Senator McCain which would ban torture, which is a good thing. But some suspect that it is only because the Justice Department has assured him that he can get around the language banning torture, and that is a bad thing. But despite the apparent capitulation of the White House on the issue of torture, we still do not have a Defense authorization bill, and nobody can tell us why. We are also told a budget reconciliation bill will come up today. Does anyone have a clue what will be in that bill? This is a bill that will impact all of our citizens and could potentially have an adverse impact on the most vulnerable of our citizens. Mr. Speaker, whether you are a liberal, a conservative, or whether you want more government or less, I think most of us would agree that whatever government we have must be competent and responsive to the people. Now, the Republicans control all of government. They control the House of Representatives, they control the Senate, and they control the White House. It is clear that they are unable to be effective stewards of our government. Now, putting aside the corruption scandals that hang like a dark cloud over the Congress and the White House, what we see is an inability to govern. When Hurricane Katrina hit the gulf coast, the Federal Government responded miserably. The President put a political appointee in charge of FEMA who was incompetent. The President took responsibility, but ultimately the incompetence and cronyism of his administration led to a disaster that included the loss of many lives. On the war in Iraq: no weapons of mass destruction, no ties between the Iraqi government and al Qaeda, and no imminent threat to the security of the United States of America; yet we rushed into war. Whether the intelligence was manipulated or not, clearly this government did not do its job. It failed, and over 2,100 Americans are now dead. But now we are in Iraq, Mr. Speaker. We were there with no post- invasion plan, we are there with no-bid contracts that have led to massive corruption and fraud, our soldiers lack the most basic protective equipment, and with a chain of command that resulted in grave abuses of human rights by some of our own uniformed men and women and some of our Iraqi allies. Ultimately, the President again took responsibility. But, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I am tired of the speeches. I, like so many others, want genuine reform and change. I want accountability. This all brings me to this Congress. There is a reason why this Congress has only a 25 percent approval rating. It is because you are doing a lousy job. You are trashing the rules and regular order. The selling of legislation to the highest bidder, the hard-ball tactics against your own Members to win votes, your lack of oversight and demand for accountability from this administration, all that and more is catching up to you. People are watching. People do care. They believe that you cannot competently run this government, and they want the government back. The mess that we have before us cannot be blamed on Democrats. After all, as I have said, Republicans control everything. You cannot blame this on Bill Clinton, even though some of you try, because he has been gone now for a full 5 years. This is your fault. The battles going on behind closed doors are between your right wing and your far right wing. For those of us in the minority, and many on your side who want good government, this is a frustrating period. Mr. Speaker, nobody denies that leadership of Congress is a hard task, but either you live up to the responsibilities or you acknowledge it is time for a change. After this sorry year, it is time for a change. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), I just want to say a couple of things. First of all, we are here 3 weeks after the Republican majority said we were to adjourn, in part because they have not done a very good job of getting our business done. Secondly, we can argue about priorities and we can argue about policies, and that is all fine and good; but one of the issues that I raised is the issue of competence. When we have disasters in this country, like Hurricane Katrina, the response of the Federal Government was miserable. It demonstrated a stunning incompetence that I am not sure has been fixed yet. People are still not getting response from the Federal Government in the Gulf States that they, quite frankly, deserve. Thirdly, in terms of debate and how legislation is brought to the floor, I think that is another failure of this Congress. We do have debates in the Rules Committee, sometimes at weird hours, where not a lot of people get to hear them. But routinely, on major pieces of legislation, they are brought to the floor with very little advanced notice. Oftentimes, people do not have a chance to review what is in the legislation. That is going to happen today with the Defense appropriations bill. No one will have an opportunity to review it. We will find out in a week or 2 weeks from now, because some Washington Post reporter or New York Times reporter or L.A. Times reporter will dig into it and find all these little goodies that none of us have a chance to know about in advance. That is not the way things should be done. The Rules Committee, for example, routinely shuts us out of offering amendments to important pieces of legislation. We had a controversial resolution on Iraq that was on the floor the other day, and yet an alternative that was proposed by the ranking member of the International Relations Committee was deemed out of order. We had a pension reform bill that some of us had issues with, and we were denied a substitute. On major bills that matter, we are shut out; and we are oftentimes not allowed the opportunity to try to get our points of view across on the House floor. And I would say that I think the American people are starting to catch on to that, and they do not like that form of government. This is supposed to be a deliberative body where important issues get debated. Again, I have no problem with the suspensions that are being brought up here today. But in comparison to some of the issues that are facing this country, from poverty to the war in Iraq, to health insurance and the high price of gas, what we are talking about now is killing time with some relatively trivial matters. There are more important issues before us. The deficit. You have accumulated the biggest deficit in the history of the United States of America as a result of your policies. That is not a success story, in my opinion. Again, we can differ on policies, but let us approach this legislation in a responsible way, and that means giving all sides, including people on your side, who have differences of opinion the opportunity to be able to debate these things fully on the House floor. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me end as I began here with a plea that we strive for a better process. This is not the way we should be running our government, bringing bills to the floor at the last minute without having given people the opportunity to read what is in them. We should have learned last year. When the Republican majority brought a bill to the floor, we had to meet again and fix it because someone snuck a provision in there that would allow certain Members of the Congress and their staffs to be able to review people's IRS records. We went back and quickly fixed that after it became public that it was in the bill. We can do so much better than what we see going on right here at this present time. I think this more than anything else is one of the reasons why I think we need a change of leadership in the Congress. I think there needs to be checks and balances. There aren't checks and balances right now. There needs to be oversight, there needs to be accountability. We need to do the people's business in a more deliberative way. We have to move away from this pattern of locking people out of opportunities to be able to participate in debates and offer their amendments. Mr. Speaker, having said all of that, we have no objection to this rule that will allow for filler between now and the time that some of these important conference reports come to the floor. I will close with this. I think every one of our colleagues needs to know that you are not going to know what is in any of these bills that are coming to the floor. You will find out in the newspapers. That is not the way this government should run. Having said that, we have no problem with the rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, in the normal course of events, I had intended to support the Conference Report on FY06 Defense Appropriations Act, H.R. 2863. I believe America's uniformed men and women deserve the very best in training, equipment, communications, logistical support, health care and pay. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership has decided to include in this Conference Report controversial items not related to our national defense. In addition, other controversial bills have been attached to the defense appropriations bill--transforming it into the vehicle for an omnibus appropriations bill--that I simply cannot support. Therefore, I will cast my vote against the Conference Report on H.R. 2863, but I want to emphasize my vote is not against genuine defense appropriations, but several of the extraneous, non-defense provisions and bills that are included in this omnibus measure.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the destruction caused by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita was devastating. More than one thousand people died and thousands of Gulf Coast residents lost their homes in these storms. As we now know, the Federal Government's reaction and response was woefully inadequate. We've seen how FEMA was ill-equipped to handle the catastrophes caused by these massive storms. We know that the then- Administrator of FEMA, Michael Brown, was the wrong choice to head such an important agency and we know that the lives of these Gulf State residents will never be the same because, in part, of the botched Federal response. The responses to these hurricanes weren't all bad. The residents of the gulf coast were fortunate that there are non-profit organizations that were able to step in and provide the basic services and care to the victims of these storms. One such group, America's Second Harvest, was a beacon of hope during and after the storm, providing food and water to the victims. America's Second Harvest is the nation's largest hunger-relief charity, and their truckloads of food and water helped support food banks and food-rescue organization in the gulf coast and other impacted areas. Yesterday, December 15th, America's Second Harvest released a report documenting the impact of emergency food distribution in the wake of these devastating storms. Specifically, this report details the depth and breadth of the impact of the Gulf region hurricane disasters on the charitable food distribution system and the clients it serves. This report shows that demand for emergency food assistance in the Gulf Coast tripled following Hurricane Katrina. Just as startling is the finding that the demand for emergency food assistance continues to be more than fifty percent higher than it was before Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The study also confirms what we know--that low income families and African Americans were disproportionately impacted by the hurricane disasters. I'm a co-chair of the House Hunger Caucus, a group I helped form to focus on and educate Members of Congress about the issue of hunger. Two days ago, the Caucus hosted a briefing on the food distribution response--Federal Government and private groups--to the hurricanes. What we learned is that we need to tighten up the system. We need to cut red tape so that food and water is on the ground, ready to go into impacted areas right away. We need to educate people in disaster-prone areas so they have adequate supplies of food, water and other necessities. And we need to make sure that the Federal Government and private groups have clear lines of communication and that there are real plans in place so that the relief and recovery can begin immediately after a disaster. There will be disasters. According to experts, the Gulf Coast is only a mild tropical storm away from being devastated once again. We must take the lessons learned from Katrina and Rita, apply to them now, and get ready for the next natural disaster that will strike. This report, and the expertise of America's Second Harvest, is a good first step and I'd like to commend Bob Forney and his staff at America's Second Harvest for their work on it and for their dedication to combating and ending hunger in America. As we look into the successes and failures in the days leading up to and the days, weeks and months following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, this report should play a critical role in the education of the American people, as well as the U.S. Congress, as to how America's emergency food networks responded to these natural disasters. Copies of the report can be found on America's Second Harvest website (www.secondharvest.org).

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of our committee, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself 7\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Speaker, last night and this morning, like all my colleagues, I watched the news reports about the parliamentary elections in Iraq. This is a proud day for the Iraqi people, and it is fitting that this Congress, this House of Representatives, recognize the courage of the Iraqi people, their desire to take control of their own destiny, and how much they have suffered to achieve this taste of democracy. As has been stated by so many analysts in the news media, one of the most important outcomes of this election was the significant participation for the first time of Iraqi Sunnis in this election, many of whom, according to news reports, were encouraged to vote, escorted to the polls or guarded at the polls by armed Iraqi insurgents. Everyone in the House of Representatives is proud of the Iraqi people. Everyone in this House respects the efforts made by our uniformed men and women to help the Iraqi people get to this historic moment. This House could have sent a strong unified message to the Iraqi people, our troops in Iraq, and to the international community in support of our troops and in support of the brave Iraqi people. But, Mr. Speaker, once again, as it has so often done in the past, this Republican leadership has chosen to include controversial language in this resolution, knowing that it will provoke sharp and divisive debate over Iraq. Rather than choosing to send a united message to the world, the Republican leadership has cynically and deliberately decided to highlight our divisions rather than our unity. Late last night, the ranking member of the House International Relations Committee, one of the most respected leaders in this House on human rights, Congressman Tom Lantos, came before the Rules Committee with a resolution that focused on congratulating the people of Iraq for three successful elections conducted in Iraq this year. The resolution further praises our troops for their contributions to peace and stability in Iraq. And, Mr. Speaker, he was rejected out of hand. Shame on the majority to treat one of the most respected Members of this body in such a fashion. Shame. Mr. Speaker, there are many points of view in this House about how the U.S. should proceed in Iraq. Even among the majority, there are differing points of view. I for one believe these successful Iraqi elections provide an opportunity for the United States to change course in Iraq and begin bringing U.S. forces home. As we pass the 1,000th day of the war in Iraq, I believe we must begin the transition to putting the Iraqis in charge. After 3 years of war, the United States claims, for better or for worse, the elimination of Saddam Hussein from power, and that the United States has furthered the Iraqi political process, culminating in the passage of a Constitution and now the first democratic election and Iraq's first constitutional government. At this point, plans for a full transfer of sovereignty to Iraqis demands a change in course, one that puts Iraqis in charge. Iraq can't move forward with 160,000 U.S. troops, the largest U.S. Embassy in the world, and with Iraqi public opinion behind a timetable for withdrawal. Mr. Speaker, many years ago Vermont Senator George Aiken said of the disastrous Vietnam war that the United States should declare victory and go home. Well, the elections in Iraq and the other milestones constitute a sufficient reason for the United States to declare that it has done all it can in Iraq, and it is time to reverse the Bush administration's policies. President Bush's unwillingness to announce a plan to remove U.S. troops within a clear time frame and his refusal to renounce the use of permanent U.S. military bases there undermines his rhetoric about Iraqi democracy and will undermine the legitimacy of the new Iraqi Government. Our occupation of Iraq complicates the transition to democracy. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright had it right, Mr. Speaker, when she said last month that the United States can support democracy, but we cannot impose democracy. And it is a deadly combination when democracy is equated with occupation. While the President continues to give speeches on the war, the American people have become disenchanted with the administration's Iraq policies and its failure to disclose a plan for withdrawal. Let us be clear, Mr. Speaker. The President has a credibility gap when it comes to Iraq. According to a December 8 New York Times/CBS poll, 59 percent of Americans disapprove of the way President Bush is handling the war in Iraq, and 70 percent do not believe that he has developed a clear plan to get American troops out of Iraq. We have lost more than 2,100 soldiers dead and over 15,000 wounded, overstretched our military, placed our homeland and those of our allies at greater risk, and still this President persists in a useless quest for, quote, victory. But excuse me, Mr. Speaker, just what is ``victory''? Who defines it? Who decides when ``victory'' has been achieved in Iraq? Is it the Iraqi people themselves? Is it President Bush, who has already declared ``mission accomplished''? Is it next year? Or the year after that? Or 5 years or 10 years down the road? Is it when we have lost 3,000 troops in Iraq? Or 5,000? Or 10-? How many more American troops do we have to sacrifice? How many more Iraqi lives must be sacrificed before we decide that ``victory'' has been achieved? While most Iraqis are confident in yesterday's parliamentary elections, two-thirds are opposed to the presence of U.S. troops, according to a poll released on December 12 by ABC News and Time Magazine. According to news reports, many of the Sunnis turned out in such large numbers yesterday because they see it as a means to end the U.S. occupation of their country. Arab voices through the Cairo process are helping change the dynamic in a positive way and are filling a role that the U.S. no longer needs to play. The President must work with the United Nations and Iraq's Arab neighbors to develop an interim arrangement as American troops depart. The best way to preserve the gains made so far is to commit to long- term financing for reconstruction, working with the new Iraqi Government to set a timetable for withdrawal, and to arrange for an over-the-horizon troop presence. The Bush administration and the Republican leadership of this House should be spending less time on spin and speeches and more time on preparing for bringing American troops home. The way out of Iraq begins by genuine respect for the will of the Iraqi people and their desire for U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq. The President can begin to demonstrate this respect by putting an end to the attempted manipulation of Iraqi public opinion with fake news written by Pentagon contractors, the unambiguous announcement that the U.S. will not maintain permanent military bases there, and the immediate initiation of a coherent plan for the withdrawal of our forces there. This will not only give the vast majority of the Iraqi people what they want, but the new Iraqi Government its strongest chance for success. Unlike what is stated in this resolution, there is nothing ``artificial'' about this approach. Congress, too, has a responsibility to take action where the Bush administration falters. Today we should praise the Iraqi people, but tomorrow this Congress should move to must-pass legislation to force beginning to bring our forces home. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking member on the International Relations Committee, who was denied his request to offer his amendment here on the floor today.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, before I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) to respond to what the chairman of the Rules Committee had said, let me make clear, nobody is talking about waving a white flag here. What we are talking about is trying to figure out a way to make a bad situation less bad. The polls have shown clearly that the majority of the Iraqi people want us out of Iraq. When a majority wants something, they usually get what they want, because that is what a democracy is about. We don't know a lot about democracy in this House because we are routinely shut out of being able to have debates and votes on important issues. But the bottom line is that those of us who are advocating that the President set some sort of a timetable are doing so because we think that that is a way to strengthen the situation, to give the new government over there a chance to succeed. I don't believe it can succeed if it is viewed as a puppet of the United States. I don't believe it can succeed with a huge U.S. occupation over there. I don't believe it can succeed with the largest U.S. Embassy in the world over there. I don't believe it can succeed if those are the conditions. And so having said that, let me yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to one of the authors of the amendment that was rejected last night in the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), my colleague on the Rules Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, to suggest that the Rules Committee respects a deliberative process in this House or that it is somehow democratic or receptive to alternative ideas, I think demonstrates to me that the chairman has pretty low standards when it comes to being inclusive. The bottom line is, on important issues, on important matters like this one, we are routinely shut out. I mean, the chairman may be on board with what the President is doing in Iraq, but there are many of us who have great concerns. And the fact of the matter is, the section that is controversial in this bill deserves debate, not in the context of this resolution, but we should be on this floor debating this for a period of time and let everybody have their chance to present their viewpoint on what our policy should be in Iraq. We should be debating Iraq almost every day. I mean, we are at war. We have lost 2,100 American servicemen and women; 15,000 are wounded. We have spent hundreds of billions of dollars, and we do not like to talk about it except in the context of these resolutions that kind of get dropped on us and brought to the floor; and we are supposed to praise our troops, which we all do. We want to congratulate the democratic voting in Iraq, which we all do. But then tucked into this is a provision which some of us find objectionable. This administration has a credibility gap, in my opinion, when it comes to Iraq. We have been misled too often, and it is time to demand the truth. It is not acceptable to embrace an open-ended U.S. policy toward Iraq that suggests that we put all our faith in the President. He has been wrong on everything. There were no weapons of mass destruction. There was no tie to al Qaeda. There was no imminent threat to the United States from Iraq, and he rushed us into war. He said we would be greeted as liberators. Here we are approaching the third year. We are not greeted as liberators. We are stuck in a mess. Mr. Speaker, I will also point out to the chairman of the Rules Committee that if you read the front page of today's Washington Post it says, ``Iraqi Vote Draws Big Turnout of Sunnis.'' Underneath, subheadline, ``Anti-U.S. Sentiment is Motivator for Many.'' A majority of the people in Iraq want us to begin the process of withdrawal; and what you are asking us to do is to embrace a resolution that says we will be there for as long as the President wants us, and that is unacceptable. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Speaker, the resolution we are debating today is an H. Res. resolution. Basically, this is just a sense of the Congress. It is largely symbolic. One of the complaints that many of us on this side of the aisle, and I know some of the people on the Republican side have as well, is that we kind of skirt around the real issue, which is what the policy is. Staying as long as it is going to take, that is not a policy. That is a sound bite. The President does not know where we are going in Iraq. He has given speeches that have been heavy on rhetoric, but not particularly big on specifics. If we want to do something helpful here, bring a binding bill to the floor here that sets out our policy, and let us have it out. Let us have the debate. Let us talk about what our policy should be in Iraq. Let us come back next week or let us come back for a week in January and have this debate. Let us discuss what, in fact, our policy should be in Iraq. We are not doing that. This is all symbolic. Notwithstanding the fact that we have 160,000 troops over there, that over 2,100 Americans have died over there, and 15,000 Americans have been wounded, tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed, we have yet to have a real policy debate on this House floor about what course we should take in Iraq. That is what we want. That is what we are hoping for. I do not think that is unreasonable. To bring a largely symbolic resolution to the floor and tuck in it this kind of policy statement, give us an hour during the debate on the resolution to talk about everything, that is not the way we should be doing business around here. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee). (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time, and I will close for our side. Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me remind the Members of this House, the chairman of the Rules Committee talked about how generous the Rules Committee is. This year, in the 109th Congress, we have had 43 restrictive rules, 22 closed rules, plus three additional closed rules that were included in one rule, H. Res. 351, and we have had 11 open rules as far as appropriations bills. Let me also simply say my point was that on important matters we usually have closed rules, as we did yesterday on the pension bill. Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so I could amend the rule and allow the House to consider House Resolution 613 instead of House Resolution 612. House Resolution 613 was introduced last evening by International Relations Ranking Member Lantos, the Democratic Leader Pelosi, Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), which expresses congratulations to the people of Iraq on three national elections conducted in 2005. This amendment was offered in the Rules Committee early this morning, but unfortunately, it was rejected. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment and the text of House Resolution 613 immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, regardless of how Members of this House feel about the war in Iraq, I think all of us want to congratulate the people of Iraq for holding these historic elections and for getting out to vote despite the significant risks. We all want to congratulate our troops, but quite frankly, there is language in this bill that some of us consider inflammatory, that some of us strongly disagree with, and I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can have a unified message and not a divisive message here in the House. Mr. Speaker, we have been in Iraq now for over 1,000 days, and I believe we must begin the transition to putting the Iraqis in charge. President Bush's unwillingness to announce a plan to remove U.S. troops within a clear time frame and his refusal to renounce the use of permanent U.S. military bases I think undermines his rhetoric and I think endangers the chance for democracy to succeed. Our occupation in Iraq complicates the transition to democracy. People can disagree with me on this, but the fact of the matter is we should be debating this issue of how we deal with Iraq not in an H. Res. form, but in a binding resolution here on the House floor. We have time to debate Merry Christmas resolutions here in the House, but we never have the time to debate in a real way and in a meaningful way this war in Iraq. We have sent thousands of our servicemen and -women into harm's way in Iraq. I would argue we rushed into this war. We have paid dearly for what the politicians in Washington have decided to do. We owe our troops better than just coming up and saying, stay the course. We owe them more than saying we are going to stay there until victory is achieved. What is victory? I mean, nobody has defined what victory is. The President says we will know when we get there. Well, that is not good enough. That is not good enough for anybody in this House. That is not good enough for our soldiers. We owe these brave men and women more than just a pat on the back and a congratulations. We owe them a real policy, and we owe the people of Iraq who have sacrificed so much the right to determine their own future. They want us to begin to extricate ourselves from Iraq. We should do that, and I would hope that my colleagues will vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can bring up a resolution that truly unites this body and not divides it.

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman from Indiana tells us we should all be happy because the Education Committee deliberated on this and there were votes in that committee. I should remind the gentleman that there are 49 members of the Education Committee. There are 435 Members of the House of Representatives. The gentleman gets all upset when Mr. Miller talks about the fact that it is important for us to be an example to Iraq about what democracy is, and that there are elections in Iraq and, you know, here we are engaged in an undemocratic process here today. But I will say this. At least in Iraq everyone has an opportunity to vote. Here we are being denied an opportunity deliberately on this floor on an issue that impacts millions and millions of our fellow citizens. This is an outrage. You know, I am amazed that people on the other side, who only a few years back would decry a closed process like this, have now come to embrace this process. This has become the norm in this House, and it has to stop. This is not democracy. This is not a deliberative process. This is a closed process where legitimate, important debate on important issues is being denied routinely. Mr. Speaker, I 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. I can say why do you bring most of the bills that you bring to the floor that I think adversely impact American workers, from repealing worker protections and worker benefits.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, there are numerous problems with this bill. This bill, as Republicans have drafted it, makes the pension crisis worse. This bill would cause many employers to freeze or terminate pensions. This bill does nothing to protect the struggling American Continental, Delta, and Northwest Airline employees and retirees. This bill does not stop companies from dumping pension plans in bankruptcy or protect the United Airline employees and retirees. The bill would freeze and cut worker pension benefits. The bill does not ensure fairness between workers and executives. I mean, I could go on and on and on. The bottom line is that many of us who have been on the side of workers consistently have deep concerns about this bill and what its impact will be on working families. We think that this bill should not only be much better, but, in fact, this bill, as it stands, will be harmful to American families. And there will be a debate about that, but absent from the debate will be what we want to propose, what others in this House want to propose, what other ideas may be. Let me just say to my friends on the other side of the aisle that you are not perfect. You are not always right. In fact, you are usually wrong. And when it comes to workers, you are usually wrong, in protecting workers' rights. To allow a bill this important to come to the floor without a single amendment being made in order, to allow this bill to come to the floor and shut us out and gag us is unconscionable. For the life of me, I cannot understand what the hesitation is by the leadership on that side of the aisle to allow us to be able to deliberate on this bill, to have a give and take, to be able to offer an amendment, to be able to have an up-or-down vote. The distinguished chairman of the Education Committee, when he was before the Rules Committee last night, said he had no problem with our offering an alternative. I commend him for that. I mean, that is the way this should be. We disagree. We have honest disagreements. We should be able to work them out in a deliberative way on the House floor. But here we are on a bill that impacts millions and millions of Americans, a bill that we believe adversely impacts millions of Americans, and we are totally shut out of this. It is not because of lack of time. We have plenty of time today. And the immigration bill seems all messed up; so we even have more time than we thought. But the fact of the matter is this important kind of legislation should not come to the floor under a closed process. This is outrageous. This has become the norm in this House. And I would simply say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, someday the tables are going to turn. You are going to be in the minority again, hopefully sooner rather than later. I hope nobody over there cries and shouts and complains if a bill comes to the floor under a closed rule. Defeat this rule.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin). (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just again say to the gentleman from South Carolina who just spoke, what we are asking for here is an opportunity to offer what we think is best. We disagree with you. We disagree with your approach. Not only do we disagree with your approach, the AARP disagrees with your approach.