Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 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, and I would like to thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, we are considering this bill, surprise, surprise, under a closed rule. Once again, the Republican majority has decided that thoughtful debate and the ability for Members to offer amendments is too much of a bother. We learned that the underlying bill, H.R. 3966, was going to be on the floor at the end of last week when Members left Washington to return to their districts. Most Members did not arrive back in Washington until yesterday afternoon, which is exactly the time the Committee on Rules was meeting to report out this closed rule. So, once again, the majority has gone out of its way to stifle debate, prevent amendments, and rush legislation through the House before people know what hit them. Mr. Speaker, one of these days, and I hope it is soon, this kind of heavy-handed use of power is going to backfire, especially when there is so much important work that is not being done. At the end of the debate on this rule, I will urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that the House can consider the critical issue of unemployment insurance for the estimated 1.1 million jobless workers who will have exhausted their regular unemployment benefits without receiving additional aid. This is the largest number of exhaustees in over 30 years, and this figure will only continue to grow when 80,000 more jobless workers exhaust their regular benefits and go without any additional aid each week. As for the underlying bill, H.R. 3966, it is my view that it should be defeated. In 1995 and 1996, Congress passed legislation to deny Defense Department funding to colleges and universities that failed to give military recruiters access to their campus and students. Known as the Solomon Law, this legislation was passed to respond to efforts by several colleges and universities to protest the discriminatory policies of the Pentagon against gay men and women. Over time, the law was expanded to prohibit funding a university might receive from nearly every Federal agency. H.R. 3966 would round out that list by expanding it to include the CIA and the National Nuclear Security Administration at the Department of Energy. The bill would also restate the Department of Transportation which was inadvertently deleted 2 years ago. Now I am grateful that this law does not apply to student financial aid, but, unfortunately, it does apply to all other grants, including research grants. Last November, a U.S. District Court in New Jersey upheld the constitutionality of the Solomon Law, but the court also determined that the Solomon Law does not give the Pentagon any basis for asserting, as it has in the regulations on implementing the Solomon Law, that universities and colleges must give military recruiters the same degree of access to campuses and students provided to other employers. Ironically, Mr. Speaker, the Solomon Law is not about equal access at all but about special access for the Pentagon. As the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network states, and I quote, ``There is no lack of equal access for military recruiters and ROTCs on America's college campuses. Any access for an employer that fails to meet schools' nondiscrimination policies is special access. The Solomon Amendment is about giving the military a special right to discriminate in a way other employers may not.'' So, Mr. Speaker, this House is being asked to use the blunt force of legislation to expand the Solomon Law to include equal treatment and scope for military recruiters who already have access to every campus and every student in the land. It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that the Pentagon sent a list to the Committee on Armed Services regarding a handful of colleges and universities that the Pentagon has predetermined do not provide them with equal treatment and quality of access to students. Now, let me emphasize, these are all colleges and universities that fully comply with the existing Solomon Law. They include several of our premier academic and research universities. And who gets to make this determination, this judgment, as to whether a college or university is in compliance with this new law? The Secretary of Defense and the Pentagon. And who gets to determine and implement the punishment? That same Secretary of Defense and the Pentagon, with no independent or neutral arbiter and no genuine right to appeal. So in these cases the Pentagon serves as prosecutor, judge, jury, and appeals court. That is not how it is supposed to work in this country, Mr. Speaker. Until I have a better understanding as to why these colleges and universities are on some predetermined watch list from the Pentagon that could strip them of all their Federal funding and research grants, I cannot support this expansion of the Solomon Law, a law which itself is grounded in discrimination. Now, Mr. Speaker, every Member of this House, including myself, supports the ability of our Armed Forces to encourage the best educated and best minds of our Nation to consider the military as a career, especially in these perilous times. But, Mr. Speaker, the military already has that ability. It simply does not want to accept ``yes'' as an answer from 100 percent of our colleges and universities regarding access to campuses and students. What the Pentagon wants is 100 percent access on their terms and their terms alone. It is true that the military has a problem with recruitment and retention, a serious situation when our troops are stretched so thin around the globe. As the resolution says, the Armed Forces face a constant challenge in recruiting top-quality personnel. But, Mr. Speaker, perhaps if the Pentagon truly addressed the serious issues of discrimination against women and against gays and against minorities, more of these top-quality personnel would be willing to serve. Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude my opening statement by asking: Are there not more urgent issues to consider before Congress adjourns for spring recess? The extension of unemployment benefits genuinely is an urgent issue, increasingly a life-and-death issue for many families, and it seems to me like a far more important issue for this House to consider before we recess on Friday than the bill that is before us this morning. As I noted earlier, at the end of this debate I will be calling for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that this House can take up the urgent issue of extending unemployment benefits to the 1.1 million needy Americans whose benefits have been exhausted. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott). (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I will urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question; and if the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule which will provide that, immediately after the House passes H.R. 3966, it will take up legislation to extend Federal unemployment benefits to the end of September of this year. Mr. Speaker, last week during testimony before the House Committee on Financial Services, the Secretary of the Treasury said the President would sign legislation to extend Federal unemployment if it reached his desk. The bill that I will attempt to make in order would give the President that opportunity. It is a simple extension of the current program through September 30, nothing more, nothing less. If the President is willing to sign this badly needed bill, then we should get it to him immediately; and if we defeat the previous question, we can get the process started right away. From late December through the end of March, an estimated 1.1 million jobless workers will have exhausted their regular unemployment benefits without receiving additional aid. This is the largest number of exhaustees in over 30 years. This figure will continue to grow, with 80,000 more jobless workers exhausting their regular benefits and going without any additional aid each week. Despite this, the Republican leadership in this House refuses to extend this program. Mr. Speaker, today's unemployment numbers are devastating. With no private sector jobs created last month and only 21,000 jobs created overall, all of them public sector or government jobs, unemployed Americans today are facing insurmountable odds. Today, 8.2 million Americans are unemployed, and 3 million private sector jobs have been lost since President Bush took office. On top of the millions of unemployed, there are 4.4 million people who are working part time, which is an increase of 33 percent since the beginning of this administration. The average length of unemployment hovers at the highest level in almost 20 years; and, worst of all, Mr. Speaker, there is no relief in sight. Yet this Congress cannot seem to find a will or the time to extend unemployment benefits to those workers who have exhausted their benefits but still cannot find work. What are their families supposed to do, Mr. Speaker? Where will the money come from to pay the rent or the mortgage, to buy medicine, food, or gas for the car? Does this House simply not care about these families and their children? Mr. Speaker, the extension of unemployment benefits is an urgent issue for many families; and it seems to me like a far more important issue for this House to consider than the bill that we are considering right at this point. Let me be very clear that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not stop consideration of H.R. 3966. But a ``no'' vote will allow the House to vote on legislation to help provide some much-needed relief to our Nation's unemployed workers, many of whom have not had a paycheck for months. However, a ``yes'' vote on the previous question will prevent the House from passing this desperately needed extension of Federal unemployment benefits to our jobless workers. Mr. Speaker, let us show the American people that we get it, that we understand what the real problems are facing the people of this country and that this House deliberates on issues that really matter, that make a difference to people's lives. So vote ``no'' on the previous question and vote to extend unemployment benefits. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. I appreciate the gentleman's answer. I would also say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, when we talk about the importance of people standing up to their responsibilities during this difficult time, I hope that there will be equal passion that will be brought to demanding that some of these Benedict Arnold companies that, quite frankly, take U.S. tax dollars and are engaged in contracts involving the reconstruction of Iraq and they do not pay U.S. taxes, I hope that there will be some accountability there. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, budgets are about priorities, and I believe that the priorities outlined in the Republican budget plan are not the priorities of the people of this country. This Republican budget is a blueprint to protect tax cuts for the wealthy at the expense of everything else. I disagree very strongly with the approach being taken by the Republican leadership. This budget plan is bad for America. It is bad for our most vulnerable citizens. It is bad for our economy. It is bad for our war on terrorism, and it is bad for our future. The Republican budget resolution will inflict terrible damage on American families. This budget cuts $358 million from health programs in the year 2005. It cuts environmental protection programs by $6.4 billion over 5 years. It fails to provide needed funding for veterans' health care. It underfunds homeland security programs. It fails to include the promised funding for No Child Left Behind. It makes college more expensive for our families by freezing the maximum Pell grant and cutting funding for Perkins loans. I am also dismayed that this budget fails to provide adequate funding for our food aid programs around the world. Winning the war on terrorism will take more than dropping bombs on people. Food aid is one of the best things we can do to boost the image of the United States in other countries. It is a way to win friends and to demonstrate to the world what we are for. This budget goes in exactly the opposite direction, and it is wrong. And it is outrageous that the Republican leadership refuses to talk straight with the American people about the issue of the budget deficit. For better or worse, the budget resolutions presented in this House have become partisan documents. As I said, perhaps better than anything else, these budgets reflect the priorities of the two parties. I understand that, for the most part, the Republican leadership believes that every problem can be solved by throwing bigger and bigger tax cuts at the wealthiest Americans and corporations. But it used to be that the Republican Party also stood for fiscal responsibility. I am a liberal Democrat, but I must say that I learned a lot during the debates of the 1980s and early 1990s. I learned that controlling the deficit is not only important to a strong economy, it is essential. And I give a lot of credit to some of the people on the other side of the aisle and especially to the Blue Dog Democrats, who were among the first to bang the drum of deficit reduction. What happened to the Republican Party? Where have all those people gone who used to care about the deficit? This Republican budget resolution will increase the deficit by $247 billion over the next 5 years. I have to believe that whether one is a liberal or a moderate or a conservative, they will find this budget fiscally irresponsible. And it has huge consequences, not only for future generations, but also for the most important task of this generation: winning the global war on terrorism. It becomes harder and harder to take the offensive against terrorism when we are mired in debt, and the Committee on the Budget refuses to include any budget process reform like the so-called pay-as-you-go rules to deal with the problem. Now we are told that how we pay for things is a separate discussion, and we will have a debate on pay-as-you-go mechanisms next week or the week after or a month later or whenever. Well, that makes no sense. Imagine if you said, I want to buy a $1 million house today, but I will figure out how to pay for it next month; the bank would throw you out on the street. But that is the way the Republican leadership has chosen to operate. By contrast, the Democratic budget proposal offers real budget enforcement rules. In fact, all of the alternative proposals do so: restoring pay-as-you-go rules to both spending and tax cuts. We provide for a strong defense in homeland security, including putting our troops first. We keep our commitment on No Child Left Behind, fund veterans health programs, health care, environmental protection, and housing; and Democrats target our tax relief to people who need it the most, those in the middle, including extending the child tax credit and marriage penalty relief. Mr. Speaker, as I said, budgets are about priorities, and the Republican budget proposal before us has the wrong priorities for America. It is that simple. I urge my colleagues to defeat the Republican budget and to support a more thoughtful and realistic approach, and I would also urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues an article by singer-songwriter Jackson Browne, which appeared in yesterday's March 22, 2004, edition of the New York Times. As my colleagues are aware, for nearly three decades, Mr. Browne has been a popular and valuable contributor to American music and culture. Cementing his role and contributions to American culture, last week, on March 15th, Mr. Browne was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. In his article, ``Songs of Cuba, Silenced in America,'' he laments and challenges the current U.S. policy of denying visas to Cuban artists who wish to perform and share their musical art with the U.S. public or who are being honored for their work by their American peers. I couldn't agree more with Mr. Browne when he describes these artists' work as a way for Americans to hear in song a reflection of the hopes, dreams and aspirations of the Cuban people--a cultural communication that is frustrated by a U.S. policy which aspires itself to suffocate all such contact and communication. Mr. Speaker, I strongly believe that when change does come to Cuba we will deeply regret the lack of contact, communication, and genuine understanding between the United States and the people of Cuba. I believe the United States would better prepare for change by encouraging now the free exchange of ideas, the freedom of travel, the rich exchange of culture and heritage between our two peoples, including our artists and ordinary Americans. I want to thank Mr. Browne for sharing his views and insights, and I commend his article to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. [From the New York Times, March 22, 2004] Songs of Cuba, Silenced in America (By Jackson Browne) Los Angeles.--Carlos Varela, the great Cuban singer- songwriter, applied for a visa to come to the United States to sing his powerful, amazing songs. He had concerts planned in Miami, New York and Los Angeles. Our government turned him down. Visas have been denied to other Cuban artists because their visits are ``detrimental to the interests'' of our country. In essence, the government says that if Carlos Varela plays concerts in the United States, the money he makes would go to Fidel Castro. This is untrue. In Cuba, renowned artists keep much of what they earn, because the government does not want them to leave the country and live somewhere else. Yet, the Bush administration used the same reasoning to keep Ibrahim Ferrer, of the Buena Vista Social Club, and Manuel Galban from attending the Grammy award ceremony in Los Angeles last month. (Both men won awards.) It also forced the postponement of concerts by the Spanish flamenco master Paco de Lucia because he plays with Alain Perez Rodriguez, a Cuban-born bassist. I congratulate the State Department on finally determining that Mr. Perez is not ``detrimental to the interests'' of our country, although those of us who were able to reschedule and hear him play this month know that he is a truly dangerous man. In a profound way, our government takes on the role of oppressor when it tries to control which artists will be allowed access to our minds and our hearts. We may think we are isolating Cuba with our embargo and our travel restrictions, but it is we Americans who are becoming isolated. People travel to Cuba from Australia, Britain, Canada, Italy and Spain--countries we consider staunch allies. United States foreign policy toward Cuba is unpopular in America, and for good reason. It stops Americans from traveling to Cuba and Cubans from coming into the States. It stops us from sharing medicine with the ill and restricts our ability to sell food to the hungry. This policy is an outdated relic of the cold war and exists only as a political payoff to Republican-leaning Cuban-American voters in Miami. The policy of punishing Cuba works only when Americans see the angry face of Cuban repression. But in the face of Carlos Varela, and the language of his music, Americans would not find the mask of a demon, but hear the aspirations of people just like themselves. Perhaps the most prominent paradox here is that Carlos Varela is known not only for his talent, but also for his courage to speak out through his songs, many of which have been interpreted as critical of the Cuban government. While these young Cubans respect the accomplishments of their leaders, they are ready, indeed impatient, to run their own affairs. They want freedom for themselves and independence for their country. They want the new Cuba to be created by the Cuban people, not by the United States. I believe in justice and human rights in the United States and abroad. I am saddened by the treatment by the Cuban government of the political dissidents in their country. I long for the day when there is freedom for both Cubans and Americans to travel in both directions across the Straits of Florida without undue interference by their governments. I want this freedom not just for artists but for all people, American and Cuban, who live each day in the hope for a just and prosperous future. Giving Carlos Varela a visa to sing in America would be a good way to begin.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to commend the gentleman from Iowa for his comments. Again, I wish that he had the opportunity to offer his amendment because I think there were a lot of Members who share his concerns. Maybe before this debate is over with, we can get an explanation from someone on the Committee on Rules as to why his amendment which was perfectly in order, required no budgetary waivers, was not allowed here, which I think is really unfortunate. We certainly have the time to be able to debate it and every Member should have the right to vote up or down on it. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Financial Services who most recently David Broder in a Washington Post article referred to as one bold thinker among Democrats, one of the most effective Members of this House.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am just trying to figure all of this out because, in the past, the Committee on Rules has used the excuse that Members have brought amendments up in their relevant committees of jurisdiction and they have not passed, so therefore we should make them in order. Now you are saying that because he did not, the gentleman from Iowa did not bring his amendment up in his committee of jurisdiction, that it should be made in order. So I do not understand.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to close for our side. Let me just again get back to the issue of the rule. I understand that there may be occasions for rules to come before the Members of this House that are not completely open, and the majority does after all have the responsibility of making sure that this House runs, that the legislative agenda moves forward. And I would prefer that any rules that come to the floor that have any kind of restrictions in them be done in consultation with the chairman and ranking members of the appropriate committees and subcommittees. But here we have a situation where the ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services and the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services said that they had no problems with the amendments that were being offered last night; and specifically in response to a question by me regarding the gentleman from Iowa's (Mr. Leach) amendment, they said they had absolutely no problem with his offering that amendment on the floor today. And I do not understand why the majority of the Committee on Rules decided last night to cut the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) out of the process. There has been a very interesting dialogue between the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank). This is obviously a very important issue. Members have strong feelings on both sides. This is the kind of amendment that we should have a debate on on the floor and Members of both sides should be able to vote up or down on. And it is not like we do not have the time. According to the schedule that the majority put out today, we are going to be out of here by three o'clock. I do not think this would take very much time. They do not want to deal with issues of substance. We cannot deal with the extension of unemployment benefits. We cannot deal with a trade bill to stop sanctions against U.S. products. I do not know where the transportation bill is or health care bills or anything else, but we do have this bill on the floor. We do have the time. And it just seems to me to be somewhat puzzling that they could not find it within their wisdom last night as the majority to allow this amendment to come to the floor and for Members to vote up or down on it. Maybe it is just because they are in the habit of restricting things and closing things down. But it just seems to me on a bill that is relatively noncontroversial where the chairman and the ranking member have no problem with the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) offering his amendment, I do not understand why the Committee on Rules has such a big problem. And I think it is unfortunate, and I think Democrats and Republicans need to continue to point out the unfairness of this process. We can do much better. And on bills like this, there is absolutely no reason why this should not have been a wide-open rule. We could have handled this in a reasonable period of time, and we could have respected all the Members of this House, both Republican and Democrat; and I just think it is unfortunate that this is becoming a trend in the Committee on Rules. We only had one open rule this year, notwithstanding all the great speeches those guys give about how they are committed to openness. This is not how we should be doing this, and I apologize to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) and others who did not have their amendments made in order last night, but I hope in the future that we do better. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner), one of the more thoughtful Members of this House and a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and 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, the Committee on Financial Services and the Committee on the Judiciary referred an imperfect bill to the full House. However, in a rare bipartisan move, the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor) joined together to try to fix what is one of the more controversial elements of this bill. And they deserve credit for trying to work in a bipartisan way and to build consensus and to bring something to this floor that a majority of this House will be able to support. Unfortunately, last night, the Committee on Rules failed to follow the lead set by our three distinguished colleagues. In what has become a very disturbing standard of operating procedure in the people's House, the Committee on Rules once again issued a restrictive rule. Now, this is the 12th rule considered by this body this year so far, and only one of them has been open. Mr. Speaker, a restrictive rule on a noncontroversial bill, and I think it is fair to say if the manager's amendment gets approved, this is a fairly uncontroversial bill, is simply undemocratic. Every day, the people I talk to grow more and more outraged with the way this Republican leadership shuts down the democratic process in this House. This restrictive rule I think is also an insult to the former chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), who I have great admiration for. The major controversy with the underlying bill is the regulation of industrial loan companies, or ILCs. The manager's amendment includes the compromise that I mentioned, worked out among the chairman, the ranking member (Mr. Frank), and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor). The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), as he testified last night in the Committee on Rules, was not satisfied with the compromise language on ILCs. And as is his right, he came to the Committee on Rules last night to offer an amendment regulating these businesses. Now, during their testimony, I asked the chairman and I asked the ranking member if they supported the right of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) to offer his amendment on the floor today. And while they said that they had some issues with the substance of his amendment, and they would not be able to support it, they both agreed that the former chairman of the Committee on Financial Services deserves the right to offer his amendment before the full House, an amendment that deals with a very important aspect of this bill. Now, if the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services and if the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Financial Services do not have a problem with the offering of the gentleman's amendment, why in the world does the Committee on Rules have a problem with the gentleman from Iowa being able to offer his amendment? The amendment that was brought before the Committee on Rules was completely in accordance with the rules of this House. There were no waivers that were required in order for it to be considered on the floor today. In fact, if this was an open rule, he would be able to offer the amendment. There would be no problem. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) is a distinguished Member of this House who drafted this amendment in a thoughtful way, and I believe that the former chairman of the Committee on Financial Services deserves more than he is getting here today. There are other amendments that were brought before the Committee on Rules last night that were not made in order. In addition, the Committee on Rules set a deadline for submitting amendments to the committee of 10 a.m. yesterday morning. By the time the Committee on Rules convened to report the rule last night, the Republican leadership knew full well that only 10 amendments would be offered today. Instead of granting an open rule so that all 10 amendments could be considered under regular order, the Committee on Rules granted this rule which provides for 1 hour of general debate and 70 minutes for consideration of the amendments. With this restrictive rule, the Republican leadership not only shuts out one of their more distinguished Members but other Members who would like to offer amendments to this bill. Again, during the hearing last night in the Committee on Rules, both the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) made mention of the fact that all these amendments could be dealt with in a relatively short period of time; that there was no reason why some of these amendments needed to be shut out of the process. For the life of me, I cannot figure out why the Committee on Rules and the Republican leadership continues to insist on shutting down democracy in this House of Representatives. Sometimes, like today, it seems as though they stifle debate just because they can. It is like a bad habit they cannot break. Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership is addicted to their own power, and I urge them to take the first step toward recovery by admitting that they have a problem, a big problem. And it is not too late. Democrats stand ready to help you, there are thoughtful Members on the Republican side who stand ready to help you. There is no reason why this bill needs to come to the floor today under this restrictive process. This should be an open process. This should be a relatively noncontroversial process, but you have made it more controversial than it needs to be. So I hope the Republican leadership at some time comes to their senses and does the right thing, but I am not holding my breath. But we are going to continue to insist that this process be more open and be more democratic. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, maybe we need to go get the text of the hearing last night. I asked specifically whether or not either the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) or the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) had a problem with the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) offering his amendment, and the answer was no. There was no qualification. So that is why I asked the question. And I repeated it several times during the hearing to make the point that even though they had some problems with the substance of the gentleman's amendment, they had no problem with him offering his amendment.

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask that I may use my 5-minute time at this point.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, over the past few months I have spoken on this floor on a weekly basis about the scourge of hunger around the world, especially among children. I have talked about the importance of adequately funding the McGovern-Dole Food For Education and Child Nutrition Program, which would provide children around the world with a nutritious school meal. If we are going to make this world a safer and better place, I strongly believe that we must eradicate hunger. This is something we can do. There are some problems that we cannot solve, but hunger is not one of them. It is important, however, in any discussion about hunger that we not ignore the problem of hunger that persists right here at home. In the face of world starvation, Americans tend to forget that millions of people in this country continue to go without food every day. Thankfully, we do not have the rampant starvation that affects places like the Horn of Africa, but that does not mean people are not going without food every day right here in the United States. When we talk about hunger in America, we are really talking about food insecurity. According to the Food Research and Action Center, food insecurity refers to the lack of access to enough food to fully meet basic needs at all times due to lack of financial resources. According to the United States Department of Agriculture, about 35 million people experienced food insecurity in 2002. This is an increase of 3.9 million people in just 3 years. Of the 12.1 million households that were food insecure in 2002, 3.8 million suffered from such severe food insecurity that they are classified as hungry. The root cause of most food insecurity and hunger in America is poverty. It is unconscionable that in 2004 there are people in this country who do not have enough money to buy food. Approximately 35 million Americans live in poverty, about the same number of people who were food insecure and hungry. The correlation is obvious. The poorest people in this country are going hungry. The sad reality is that every day there are parents who sacrifice their own food so that their kids can eat. I recently read a speech by my friend, the late Senator Paul Wellstone, delivered at Iowa State University in 1998. In that speech, Senator Wellstone recalled how he traveled to the Mississippi Delta after reading the book ``Let Them Eat Promises'' by Nick Kotz, following in the footsteps of Robert Kennedy. Senator Wellstone was so moved by the story about how Robert Kennedy, when touring the country to see firsthand the poverty and hunger that ravaged parts of this Nation, tried to connect with a young boy in the Mississippi Delta. When the boy would not even respond because of his severe malnourishment, Bobby Kennedy just broke down and cried. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that if we left this Capitol building right now and traveled to another part of Washington or another city and town in America, we would find a similar situation. On that July day at Iowa State University, Senator Wellstone asked his audience, ``Can't we do better?'' Well, Mr. Speaker, the answer is, yes, we can. During the last several decades, Congress has passed landmark legislation providing nutritious meals for low-income children and families. While the programs created over the last century do not adequately address the problem of poverty in America, they help in part to alleviate the food insecurity caused by poverty. These programs are vitally important and have improved the quality of millions of lives since their adoption. The school lunch program, the school breakfast program, WIC and food stamps are just a few of the landmark programs that make up the core of our antihunger safety net here in the United States. Many of these programs are up for reauthorization this year, and our colleagues on the Committee on Education and the Workforce, led by the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) and the gentleman from California (Ranking Member George Miller), have produced a bipartisan bill that reauthorizes and expands many of these programs. While I am disappointed that this bill, as currently drafted, does not go farther than it does, it is a good bill considering the circumstances under which it was drafted, and I am looking forward to its consideration in the near future. Mr. Speaker, while these programs are important and need to be reauthorized and expanded, issues I will talk about at a later date, we cannot continue to ignore the fact that poverty is the root cause of food insecurity and hunger here in the United States. We have a moral responsibility to end food insecurity and hunger. We have a moral responsibility to end and combat poverty. We can achieve these goals if we have the moral and political courage to do so. The President recently challenged us to do what is necessary to put a man on Mars. That is a fine goal; but I would submit that a better, more urgent goal is combating hunger and ending poverty. We should begin a new war on poverty. Let us utilize all that the government and the private sector can do to undertake this challenge. Only then will we end the scourge of food insecurity and hunger.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the undemocratic, completely closed rule, and in opposition to House Resolution 557. Mr. Speaker, like all of my colleagues, I have tremendous respect for the men and women of our Armed Forces who are bearing the burden of this military action in Iraq. My support and my commitment to them and their families are unwavering. I will work to ensure that they remain the best trained, the best led, and the best equipped military force in the world. I am grateful and humbled by their courage, endurance and sacrifice, and I honor them not just today but every day, and I only wish this House was considering today a truly bipartisan resolution that properly honored our troops. Unfortunately, once again this House is claiming to honor our troops without devoting the necessary resources for their safety or for their support. House Resolution 557 will do nothing to ensure that every one of our military personnel, including our National Guard and reservists serving on the front lines in Iraq will be fully equipped with the latest body armor. Instead, many families of our troops are buying and shipping that protection overseas to their loved ones, out of their own pockets with no hope for reimbursement. This is unacceptable, and we should fix it. This resolution will do nothing to close the pay gap for our reservists and National Guard members who have been called away from their civilian jobs to serve in Iraq. Their families are struggling, going into debt as a result of their patriotic service. Yet the leadership of this House, unlike the other body, resists funding commonsense solutions to the problems caused by these overlong activations. This is unacceptable, and we should fix it. This resolution contributes nothing towards fully funding our military construction needs so that all our military personnel have decent housing and facilities in which to live, train, and work. This is unacceptable, and we should fix it. Mr. Speaker, I support our troops. I want to help the suffering people of Iraq live and prosper in a safe and secure nation. I want them to have the opportunity to choose their own government, one where every Iraqi may worship as he or she chooses, and every man, woman and child can live out their lives. But 1 year and $120 billion later, we face continuing hostilities in Iraq, with no end in sight. This resolution fails to mention that the war in Iraq was justified by this administration on the threat of weapons of mass destruction. Why? Because just like the experts tried to tell us for months before the war, we now know there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I do not believe we needed to send over 150,000 American troops to Iraq to confirm that fact. Mr. Speaker, 566 soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines have died, and over 3,200 more have been wounded. Thousands of Iraqi men, women and children have perished, and scores of other civilians and nationals have been killed since we entered Iraq. There is no mention, no remembrance for them in this resolution. Today the American taxpayer is still paying for almost all of the cost of Iraq without the least idea of how much the war has cost to date or how much it will cost in the future. In fact, the operations in Iraq are not even included in the President's budget. We still do not have a truly independent commission to provide a full accounting of the events leading up to the war and the nature of the intelligence of policymaking that led the Bush administration to go to war. Mr. Speaker, 1 year later the United States is more isolated than ever in the world. Terrorist networks are proliferating, including new networks in Iraq and Europe. And our troops abroad and our first responders at home are overstretched, underfunded, and overburdened. I am glad Saddam Hussein no longer has the power to torment the Iraqi people, but unlike the claim made in this resolution, I do not believe that the world is a safer, less dangerous place than it was 12 months ago. This resolution is more about what the Republican leadership wants us to forget about the past year: the costs, the bloated contracts, no weapons, no ties to al Qaeda, the flawed intelligence, the wounded and the dead. I urge all my colleagues to remember and vote against this undemocratic rule and vote against this bill.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, as many people know, there is an effort underway by some of our colleagues to diminish FDR's legacy by taking his profile off the dime and replacing it with President Ronald Reagan's profile. I am not opposed to honoring President Reagan, who served our country with great distinction, but why in order to honor President Reagan must we dishonor President Roosevelt? I would like to explain to my colleagues the reasons why FDR is on the dime. Having been paralyzed by infantile paralysis, polio, FDR was a long-time supporter of efforts to eradicate the disease. In 1938, he founded the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis, a national organization which raised funds to find a cure for polio. The following year, comedian Eddie Cantor asked the Nation to mail dimes to the White House to help the foundation; and in one month, the White House received $85,000 in dimes. Cantor declared it a March of Dimes, and the name became the lasting moniker for the foundation. The new FDR dime was issued on January 30, 1946, the date that would have been FDR's 64th birthday. In a broadcast kicking off the annual March of Dimes campaign on the same day, President Harry S. Truman declared: ``The fight to conquer infantile paralysis is an unfinished task of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It must and shall be carried to complete victory.'' Madam Speaker, at this point, I include in the Congressional Record the March of Dimes statement against removing FDR's profile from the dime. March of Dimes Strongly Opposes Removal of FDR From the Dime The profile of President Franklin D. Roosevelt was placed on the dime in 1946 to memorialize his 4 term Presidency, his fight to find a vaccine to prevent polio, and the volunteer movement epitomized by the March of Dimes. For all these reasons, the March of Dimes strongly opposes efforts to remove FDR from the dime. The Franklin D. Roosevelt dime commemorates a national movement that resulted in the eradication of polio from the United States and in the near future from the entire world. The efforts funded through the ``March of Dimes'' campaign initiated by Roosevelt provided care for the victims of polio while aggressively working to develop vaccines against it. This represented one of the first large-scale, nationwide biomedical initiatives, led by a charitable organization. It also helped make the volunteer movement an integral part of the fabric of American life. In January 1938, alarmed by decades of worsening polio epidemics and the terrible toll the virus was taking on America's young, President Roosevelt established the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis. The National Foundation emphasized the nationwide significance and non-partisan character of the polio crusade. FDR believed that people could solve any problem if they worked together. Comedian Eddie Cantor coined the phrase ``March of Dimes'' (playing on the popular newsreel feature ``The March of Time''), appealing to radio listeners all over the country to send their dimes directly to the White House. The campaign proved to be hugely successful with over 2.5 million dimes sent to the White House the first year. The National Foundation officially changed its name to the March of Dimes in 1979. The FDR dime not only commemorates his presidency, but represents the American spirit of working together to help one another. The coin is symbolic of the struggle to end polio through the ``March of Dimes'' campaign and the worldwide eradication of polio is expected in 2005. The dime is a vehicle in which to explain what the volunteer spirit in America means, it would be a shame to lose that. In response to the Reagan dime bill, I introduced H. Con. Res. 343, which expresses Congress's support for the FDR dime. It currently has 130 cosponsors. In fact, Nancy Reagan supports leaving FDR on the dime. Mrs. Reagan said, ``While I can understand the intentions of those seeking to place my husband's face on the dime, I do not support this proposal, and I am certain Ronnie would not. When our country chooses to honor a great President such as FDR by placing his likeness on our currency, it would be wrong to replace him with another. It is my hope that this proposed legislation will be withdrawn.'' I, at this point, would insert into the Congressional Record an editorial from the Gainesville Times on this issue. Honor Reagan? Fine. Dishonor Roosevelt? No. The latest lunacy to emanate from Congress needs to stop on a dime: literally. Rep. Mark Souder, a Republican from Indiana, is miffed about the miniseries now airing on Showtime, a premium cable channel operated by CBS, on former President Ronald Reagan and his wife, Nancy. The miniseries portrays Reagan, who suffers from Alzheimer's, as a doddering, rather pathetic figure and his wife as a calculating, domineering manipulator. Therefore, according to Souder's logic, Reagan should replace former President Franklin Delano Roosevelt on the dime. Souder and other conservatives, inside and outside Congress, were outraged when CBS announced earlier this fall that it would air ``The Reagans'' on network TV. CBS backed off last month and sent the miniseries to Showtime, where it plays to much smaller audiences. That hardly mollified Souder and some of his colleagues in the House. ``It's what precipitated me introducing the bill . . . and why it was a lot easier to get a lot of support,'' Souder said of the miniseries, which he termed ``vile'' in a letter to colleagues in support of his proposal. Souder claims to have the support of 88 other House Republicans for his ridiculous idea. More than a dozen of them are from California, where the Reagans make their home and where Reagan is a former governor. In his effort to rewrite history and dishonor Roosevelt, Souder trots out the ``L'' word in what's becoming a tiresome exercise in partisan politics. ``I believe (Reagan) represents conservative values as we would see them implemented through a president better than anybody else we've had in American history,'' Souder said. ``He, to conservatives, represents kind of the reverse of FDR, who is kind of the liberal icon. Ronald Reagan is the conservative icon.'' We ``kind of'' miss Souder's point and why the obscure congressman believes it's proper to replace Roosevelt on the coin. The presidencies of Roosevelt and Reagan occurred nearly 50 years apart under circumstances that were quite different. While Reagan helped restore some resolve to American foreign policy in the aftermath of the caution that resulted from the disastrous Vietnam War and gets credit for cracking the facade of communism, Roosevelt governed in much more dire and challenging times. In 1933, FDR inherited a nation that was reeling from the Great Depression, which began four years earlier when the stock market crashed and set into motion the most cataclysmic economic emergency in the nation's history. From Wall Street to Main Street, panic reigned. Tens of millions of Americans watched their savings, jobs and fortunes vanish. Roosevelt's innovative employment and economic programs, and the sweeping changes that guaranteed the financial future of older Americans with the creation of Social Security, lifted the nation out of the Depression's nightmare. During World War II, Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill turned back the horror of Nazi Germany in North Africa and Europe and the brutal occupation of most of Asia by the Japanese in leading history's greatest and most successful coalition in the name of freedom. While Roosevelt and Churchill were hesitant to partner with Soviet leader Josef Stalin and shortsightedly criticized for doing so, they pragmatically understood the war against Hitler could not be won without assisting the communists. Roosevelt an icon? How else to describe a president so popular and successful he was elected to four terms as president? We suspect that many of the Indiana voters represented by Souder were helped to no small degree by the policies that Roosevelt engineered until his death in 1945. Many of them still are beneficiaries of Roosevelt's work. Reagan deserves an important place in history. And he has won recognition for his achievements in many ways. Ronald Reagan National Airport and the building that houses the Justice Department are named for the former president, as well as countless schools, streets, roads and bridges across America. We respect the conservatism that Reagan personifies and the conservative values that Souder desires so passionately to honor. But removing Roosevelt from the dime is an illogical and disrespectful way to do so. Roosevelt and Reagan both were great men and leaders. Few rise to the office of the president without the extraordinary qualities that both possessed. We would urge Souder and his colleagues to find a less partisan and emotionally charged way to honor the accomplishments of Ronald Reagan. He deserves better than the outlandish scheme that Souder and his co-sponsors of the bill offer. Mr. Speaker, FDR was a true liberal. He was a believer in dynamic and efficient government. He was not afraid to use government to lift people out of poverty or to help our children, our seniors, our farmers, our veterans, the unemployed, or those who have been forgotten by society. In his second inaugural address, he said: ``The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.'' Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand with my colleagues in honoring FDR. He was a wonderful President, and our Nation and our world is better for his service.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) who has been so gracious to me on so many occasions for yielding me this time. Madam Speaker, first let me thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) and the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) for introducing this resolution honoring President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It is important for Members of this House to not only remember but to acknowledge his many accomplishments and his unique place in our history. The vast majority of Presidential scholars consider FDR to be one of our country's greatest Presidents. As we all know, FDR assumed the Presidency as this Nation confronted the Great Depression. His inspirational words of hope helped Americans get through some of the most difficult economic challenges in our history, and his bold leadership and creative policies ultimately led us out of the Great Depression. He showed us then, and I think we should all remember this now, that government can be a force for good. It can be an instrument to empower and to help people. For example, Social Security is one of FDR's greatest legacies. Today, Social Security provides half the income of 60 percent of our senior citizens. It is a program that keeps countless seniors from falling into poverty, the kind of devastating poverty that plagued so many before FDR's efforts. As we honor Franklin Delano Roosevelt's efforts today, we must recommit ourselves to protecting and strengthening Social Security. It can be there for our children and our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren. After America was attacked at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, FDR and the Greatest Generation rose to the defense of our country by fighting against the Axis Powers. Millions of men and women were mobilized for our war effort. These Americans came from small towns, large cities, regardless of race or class. They courageously defended our freedom. They sacrificed much, and our country's eternally grateful for their service. It is particularly fitting that we honor FDR now because 2004 is the 60th anniversary of D-Day. In honoring FDR, we honor the young soldiers who stormed the beaches of France and turned the tide of World War II. This is also the year that we will dedicate the World War II memorial on the Washington Mall. Madam Speaker, I attend veterans events in my district all the time, and never is there a time when a World War II veteran does not come up to me and tell me how honored he was to serve under Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He was an extraordinary Commander in Chief. Following FDR's death on April 12, 1945, plans were formulated to honor FDR on the dime. The chief proponent of placing FDR's likeness on the dime was then-U.S. Representative Clyde Doyle of California; and Madam Speaker, at this point, I will insert the text of a letter written by Representative Doyle to the U.S. Mint in the Congressional Record May 3, 1945. Re To have the likeness of our late President Franklin Delano Roosevelt placed on the dime. Director, Bureau of the Mint, Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC. My Dear Friend: A few days ago I received from you in compliance with my request the listing of the relative place in our currency circulation of the first three coins. I note the dime is No. 3. Thank you for this information. As we stated in asking you therefor, I had in mind that it would be proper to have the likeness of our great President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, placed on the dime. I say ``proper'' for the following reasons, amongst others: First. The dime was made famous over the world because of the triumph by our great beloved President of great spirits, heart, mind, and soul over physical infirmities and handicaps. Second. It was made famous over the world because of the March of Dimes which was sponsored by him in order that the terrible disease of infantile paralysis might be eliminated in the experience of all mankind. The millions of dollars received has actually achieved a great deal in this worthy objective. Third. Other coins of our great Nation have had the likenesses of our great Presidents and citizens placed upon them. Fourth. The circulation of the dime, while No. 3 now in our Nation, is so rapidly increasing that it has become almost the most popular coin in business. Fifth. The dime has become a piece of money for which the average American has real affection because of the identity thereof with the March of Dimes. The other most commonly used coins each have the head of a great American past President, to wit: The penny, Abraham Lincoln; the nickel, Thomas Jefferson; the quarter, George Washington. It would be very appropriate to have the replica of this great American on one side of the time and the replica of the Goddess of Liberty on the other side. I do not purpose to offer a bill on the floor of the House in this regard, because I anticipate that a simpler and more efficient process of doing this timely act would be by your Department deciding so to do. If I am in error in this important thought, I shall appreciate your advising in the premise. I will say, from the Eighteenth Congressional District of California, which I have the honor to represent, there come frequent and very large numbers of requests that this development in honor of this great American take place as promptly as possible. If there is any reason why this cannot be done by you, kindly call my attention thereto by reply mail. I have the honor to be, Sincerely yours, Clyde Doyle, Member of Congress.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, currently there are more than 300 million chronically hungry children in the world. Around 130 million of these children, mainly girls, do not attend school. The rest go to school hungry, severely limiting their ability to learn. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's McGovern-Dole International Food for Education Program is helping to change this grim reality. One exciting example of this program is taking place in Afghanistan where World Vision is making a difference in the lives of 37,000 children. In Afghanistan, 52 percent of children under 5 are malnourished. Access to education is extremely limited, and the quality of education, when available, is poor. The Taliban largely excluded girls from formal education, and women were prohibited from teaching. The World Bank estimates the primary school enrollment rate at 39 percent for boys and 3 percent for girls. In the current environment, the demand for education opportunities far outstrip supply. Schools run multiple shifts, and many classes meet outside with the barest minimum of basic material, teachers, and facilities. This particular McGovern-Dole International Food Program is being implemented in 115 schools in the remote provinces of Badghis and Ghore in the western region of Afghanistan. In this area, out of a school- aged population of 60,000, only 23,000 students were enrolled in schools last year; and just some 3,400 were girls. World Vision is providing 37,000 students with a monthly ration of wheat, rice, lentils and vegetable oil for attending school, which also serves as an incentive for poor Afghan families to send both their sons and their daughters to class. These commodity are provided by hard- working farmers in Washington State, California, Tennessee, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. In the most remote areas, World Vision is using donkey trains to transport the food to the schools. In each of the 115 schools, World Vision trains community volunteers to help identify pressing needs and will provide all 37,000 students with a student kit including notebooks, pens, pencils, erasers, sharpeners, shoes, a book bag, and a cloth wrap for girls so they are not excluded from education in conservative areas due to cultural taboos. World Vision also works with community volunteers to make sure that the school is a proper learning environment for the children and will be supplying each school with chalkboards and chalk, desks, tables, cabinets, maps, books, water systems, and latrines. World Vision is building nine schools over the course of the next year in the Jarwand district, where there are only six schools covering just 4 percent of the total school population. While nine schools cannot address all of this need, it will allow another 3,600 students to attend classes. These schools will replace and greatly expand four temporary schools set up last year under UNICEF plastic tents. Five of these schools are being constructed with McGovern-Dole funding, and the other four are being built with private resources raised by World Vision. World Vision is working with local councils so some of these schools will be set up exclusively for girls. World Vision's agronomists are also helping each school set up its own garden to raise cucumbers, tomatoes, eggplants, okra, onions, carrots, spinach, hot peppers, turnips and watermelon, which will complement the U.S.-grown commodities with the micronutrients that vegetables can supply. These garden projects also teach improved agricultural techniques to students and interested community members which they can use in their own family farming; and they help the schools establish a microenterprise, selling the excess production and using the funds to defray the schools' cost. World Vision is training 675 teachers in the new ministry of education curriculum, designed by UNICEF to replace the Taliban's restrictive system. It is also complementing teachers' meager salaries with food baskets so they can dedicate their full time to teaching instead of taking on jobs outside the schools. This support comes at a critical time in Afghanistan's transition as the new government struggles to reestablish infrastructure in these remote areas. Originally, World Vision's Afghanistan program was designed as a 2- year program; and in the second year it would have greatly expanded benefits to additional communities, students, and teachers. Unfortunately, President Bush severely cut funding for the McGovern- Dole International Food for Education Program, and this Congress failed to protect the program in the appropriations process. Sadly, many projects have been cut back to 1 year. Mr. Speaker, I call on the leadership of this House to significantly increase funding for the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education Program so its many worthy projects like the World Vision program in Afghanistan can reach even more needy children and communities.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments, but I would just say that what his bill does is it protects an industry that does not need to be protected at this particular point. We are dealing with a problem that does not exist. The problem that does exist is that we do have a problem with obesity in this country. This bill does nothing to deal with that issue. If anything, what it does is it tells the fast- food industry, you have no responsibility to our kids. You can do whatever you want to do. And that is the wrong message we want to be sending at this particular point. I also want to correct the gentleman on one other thing. He referred a couple of times to this rule as an open rule. This is not an open rule. This is not an open rule. And by the definition taken by the Republicans when they were in the minority, they said any rule that is not considered under a completely open process is considered restrictive, and this is not a completely open process. They further said that these rules are the rules that limit the number of amendments that can be offered and include the so-called modified open and modified closed, as well as completely closed, rules. This is not an open rule. The Republican majority when they came into power said they were committed to an open process. They have given us anything but an open process. And the question that I asked the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules still stands. If a Member is watching this debate and scratching their head, why are we debating such a trivial matter when we have so many other issues to deal with that really do impact the American people very directly, and they wanted to come down here right now and offer an amendment, they would be unable to under this restrictive process that the Republicans on the Committee on Rules have given us today. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).