Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with the remarks of my colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), who talked about the underfunding of so many important programs in this bill but, in particular, of the Community Development Block Grant program. When we talk about our national security, it means more than the number of missiles that we possess, and it means more than the number of military bases we have overseas. It means as well--and just as importantly--many of the priorities that are contained in the Transportation and Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill. That is why it pains me to come to the floor today to lament about how woefully underfunded key transportation, infrastructure and housing programs are in this bill--programs that revitalize our communities, help our neighbors secure affordable housing, and support smart economic development. The bill, as it is before us today, simply put, is unfixable at its current allocation level. There are programs like the HOME program, which is at its lowest funding level in its history. Just so my colleagues understand, the HOME program is a critical Federal investment utilized by States and localities to provide affordable rental and homeownership opportunities for low-income households. As we recover from a damaging recession, these cuts in this program will put further strain on affordable housing opportunities. This bill also severely underfunds tenant-based rental assistance, project-based rental assistance, and the Public Housing Capital Fund. I continue to hear from housing advocates in my home State of Massachusetts, and their message is consistent and clear: we need more funding in these accounts to ensure that all families have access to affordable, comfortable, and stable housing. The families that we're talking about aren't losing sleep overnight wondering whether they're going to be attacked from some country overseas. They're losing sleep overnight because they don't know whether they're going to have shelter to protect their own families. They're worried about their own security in this country, and yet we are underfunding these programs so significantly. I'm especially concerned, as my colleague from Pennsylvania stated, about the proposed reduction in Community Development Block Grant funding. This bill cuts CDBG formula grants by nearly 50 percent and funds this program at its lowest level since its creation in the 1970s. In April, I joined with 143 bipartisan Members on a programmatic request letter to appropriators in support of $3.3 billion for this program. In July, after the subcommittee's legislation was released, 101 bipartisan Members wrote to the Appropriations Committee again expressing support for effective funding levels. There is demonstrated bipartisan support for Community Development Block Grants, Mr. Chairman, because these dollars are at work in communities in each of our districts. Last week, Governor Deval Patrick of Massachusetts announced that 38 communities in Massachusetts will receive over $31 million in CDBG funding. These dollars will fund housing rehabilitation, child care centers, cityscape improvements, and social services, just to name a few. I also want to point out that every $1 in Community Development Block Grants leverages an additional $3.55 in funding to revitalize our communities. Investing these Federal dollars in our cities and in our towns spurs redevelopment efforts and provides a high return on our investment. These funds also create and save jobs. Since fiscal year 2005, these funds have created or retained over 300,000 jobs. If my friends on the other side of the aisle are serious about job creation, CDBG is not the place to cut. Realizing the need for effective funding, the Senate appropriations bill funds the program at $3.15 billion. So, should this bill go to conference, Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject these cuts in the House bill and support robust funding for Community Development Block Grants, a program with a proven record of supporting community development efforts across our country. Let's stop these reckless and harmful cuts to our communities. We ought to be on the floor today fixing sequestration. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle should be on the floor today appointing conferees on the budget so that we can negotiate more reasonable allocations on these appropriations bills. I would remind my colleagues that this is not some abstract debate that we're having here today on the floor. These cuts will hurt real people. They will pave the way for more deterioration of our cities and towns. They will cost jobs and they will hurt our economy. Enough is enough. We're supposed to be helping people, not hurting people. It's time for Congress to get its priorities straight. I urge my colleagues to support the CDBG program, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, today, I am introducing the bipartisan Wounded Warrior Service Dog Act of 2013. This important bill aims to address a demonstrated need among our veteran population. With so many veterans returning from war, bearing both physical and emotional scars, we must do all we can to provide treatment that works. On a recent visit to the National Education for Assistance Dog Services, or NEADS, located in Princeton, Massachusetts, I heard amazing stories about how service dogs are helping to treat veterans with physical disabilities, as well as those suffering from posttraumatic stress. This nonprofit organization has connected many deserving veterans with service dogs over the past few years with incredible results. In recent years, the demand for service dogs has grown significantly, and organizations like NEADS are having trouble meeting high levels of demand. To address this shortage, the Wounded Warrior Service Dog Act of 2013 would create a competitive grant program for nonprofits that train service dogs for use by veterans. It is my sincere hope that through this program we can better connect our veterans with service dogs in an effort to ease their transition into civilian life. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the 19th time this year, I rise to talk about my effort to End Hunger Now. Nearly every week this year, I've stood on this floor and talked about hunger in America and how we can End Hunger Now. Today, I want to talk about a group of people who are fighting hunger around this country. At first, they may seem like an unlikely group of antihunger advocates; but look deeper, and it's easy to see how their connection to good, healthy food makes them natural allies in our effort to End Hunger Now. Mr. Speaker, I'm talking about America's chefs, the culinary artists who cook for all of us, whether we're eating at a neighborhood restaurant or fine dining establishments. America's chefs have recognized that hunger and obesity are problems in America, and they know how important access to healthy food is for proper development no matter what age a hungry or malnourished person is. Chefs across this country, including White House Chef Sam Kass, have rallied behind First Lady Michelle Obama's Let's Move Campaign, and especially the healthy eating component of her campaign. They understand that healthy food is critical for healthy bodies and minds. But what's less well known is that these same chefs have also picked up the mantle of hunger in America. They realize that hunger and obesity are the opposite sides of the same coin--that it's possible to be hungry and obese simply because you lack money to buy healthy foods; and, in many cases, healthier options, including fresh fruits and vegetables, simply aren't available. That's why these chefs have been working on eliminating food deserts, those areas, both urban and rural, where there isn't access to low- cost, healthy, and nutritious foods. And they've been working with food banks and other antihunger organizations on ways to provide food to poor and needy Americans. This includes vigorously defending SNAP and the child nutrition programs. One of the great leaders on hunger from the culinary industry is Tom Colicchio, someone I'm proud to call a friend and ally. Tom wears several hats: he's a successful restauranteur with restaurants across this country from Los Angeles to New York, and he's a television celebrity with his role as judge on ``Top Chef''; but most recently, and more importantly to millions of Americans who may never have the opportunity to eat at one of his restaurants, Tom is an advocate for the hungry and for those who are trying to improve their lives. He was a vocal supporter of the Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act that increased funding for school meals in order to improve the nutritional quality of food served at schools. But he's also a producer of the documentary ``A Place at the Table,'' a beautifully filmed, heart-wrenching movie about hunger in America. His role in our fight to End Hunger Now cannot be understated, and his efforts are needed and appreciated. Then there is my dear friend, Chef Jose Andres, who brings a passion and a commitment to ending hunger. He has dedicated himself to raising awareness, challenging policymakers, and giving back to the community in ways, both large and small, that have really made a difference to ending hunger in America and around the world. And he's not alone. Chefs like Mark Murray, Rachael Ray, Bryan Voltaggio, and Charlie Palmer, just to name a few, all lend their names, their restaurants, and themselves to the fight to End Hunger Now. Working through antihunger organizations like Share Our Strength, founded and run by my good friend Billy Shore, these chefs are reducing hunger in so many different and unique ways. But it's not just the famous celebrity chefs who are helping. Share Our Strength has a program called Cooking Matters, where chefs teach low-income families healthier ways to cook food. Together with their Shopping Matters program, where these same families can learn how to navigate their local markets to purchase the healthiest food they can afford, these programs are fighting hunger at local levels. And the chefs involved, from Arkansas to Colorado to Massachusetts, are using their expertise to teach these families the healthiest ways to cook food. Chefs are just one of the nontraditional groups that are out in the real world fighting hunger. They are leading by example. And their actions need to be highlighted not just on the House floor, but at the White House, at a White House conference on food and nutrition. Chefs should absolutely be part of such a conference where they can talk about their efforts and ways they can help low-income families improve their cooking and eating habits. These chefs and the organizations they partner with are a key part of our fight to End Hunger Now. I commend them for their dedication, and I look forward to working with them in this effort.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss a Bahraini prisoner of conscience, Nabeel Rajab, a prominent human rights activist and the president of the Bahrain Center for Human Rights. Nabeel Rajab was sentenced to 3 years in jail simply for engaging in nonviolent political protests. Nabeel Rajab is not alone. Scores of prisoners are incarcerated in Bahrain because they have called for meaningful reforms. Nabeel Rajab's abusive treatment by Bahraini security forces starkly contradicts Bahrain's pronouncements of full-fledged support for human rights. I ask for the immediate release of Nabeel Rajab and seek the full support of Congress and the Obama administration. Nabeel Rajab is a focus of the Defending Freedoms Project, a collaborative initiative spearheaded by the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission that invites Members of Congress to stand up for prisoners of conscience around the world through various actions. Today, I invite my colleagues to take part in this important nonpartisan opportunity. Our voices can make a difference in the release of these prisoners.

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge people to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will allow the House to consider the Van Hollen resolution, which calls on Speaker Boehner to proceed to a conference on the budget. It is time for the majority to follow regular order by immediately appointing conferees to negotiate the 2014 budget conference agreement with the Senate. To discuss that proposal, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I don't have a problem with what's in this rule; I have a problem with what's being left out of the rule. We have some serious issues to discuss: the NSA surveillance program, limited debate in this rule. We need to talk about Syria and whether we're going to get sucked into another war. Multiple amendments were offered. All of them were denied, except one that basically reinstates current law. There are issues about Egypt that ought to be discussed on the floor. And when I hear my colleagues say these are sensitive issues, we shouldn't talk about them on the floor, then where should we talk about them? This is the appropriate bill to talk about those things; yet many of these amendments were not made in order. That's why an open rule would have been more appropriate. In terms of debate, I don't know why we have to limit debate on the NSA down to 15 minutes a piece. Everybody is concerned about this. I will just close, Mr. Speaker, by again urging my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question so that we can offer an amendment to allow Mr. Van Hollen's language to be made in order that the Republican leadership agree to go to conference with the Senate over the budget. This sequester and these budget numbers that you are bringing to the floor on these various appropriation bills are destructive. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are hurting this economy. This gamesmanship that my friends on the other side are playing is doing great damage to this country. We have to stop this. We have to be grownups here and do what we're supposed to do. The most important thing that can happen right now, given the fact there's only 16 legislative days left to the end of this fiscal year, is for my friends on the other side of the aisle to go to conference on the budget and work out a deal so that we don't have these devastating cuts that will impact every city and town in this country, that will throw tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people out of work, that will do further damage to our infrastructure. National security means the quality of life that people have here in the United States. It means whether they can have good health care or good education, whether they have good and safe roads to drive on. It means whether they have a job. National security begins right here at home; and the numbers that my Republican friends have been bringing to the floor, in terms of allocations for these appropriation bills on domestic spending, would be devastating to this economy. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question, and I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule. We should have an open rule where we can talk about all these major issues that are confronting our Nation and the world. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. May ask the gentleman how many more speakers he has?

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, just to build on what my colleague Mr. Van Hollen was talking about, the reason we are so frustrated over here is that it seems that the Republican leadership is hellbent on doing nothing--on stopping everything. We have 16 legislative days left until the end of the fiscal year. You've only passed three appropriations bills. Notwithstanding the fact that the House passed a budget and the Senate passed a budget, there has been no conference on the budget. We have a debt limit looming, and I hear rumors that you're trying to figure out what pound of flesh you can obtain in order to avoid our defaulting on our financial obligations. This is not the way to run a government. I would just plead with my colleagues on the other side that you need to get serious about sitting down and negotiating our differences. One of the things about a conference is you don't get everything you want, and they don't get everything they want. As to these appropriations bills that you are bringing to the floor, their allocations are so low that they are unamendable on the House floor, and they would do great damage to our economy. This THUD bill I don't think will ever see the light of day any more than I think the Ag approps bill, which we gave a rule to, will ever see the light of day. Within that THUD bill are cuts in the Community Development Block Grants, which you cut in half. The devastation on cities all across this country and communities all across this country would be so bad. People are going to lose jobs. The gentleman from Maryland talked about the furloughs and about people losing their jobs because of the sequester, and you sit back and say, Oh, it's not our fault. This is the body that voted for it. I mean, the people of this House voted for it. I didn't, but the majority of my friends on the other side voted for sequester. It is now the law of the land. That's part of what Congress did. Congress has to change the law so we get our economy back on the right track, and one way to begin is to do what you're supposed to do and go to conference with the Senate on the budget. I reserve the balance of my time. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nugent), my friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to build on something that Mr. Welch of Vermont said here on the House floor about the lack of debate on Syria. As somebody who was here when the Afghanistan war began and when the Iraq war began, I believe that both of those wars were unnecessary. We ended up getting Osama bin Laden not in Afghanistan with 100,000 troops, but with a small well-trained group of Navy SEALs in Pakistan. This notion that somehow our strength can only be measured by the number of troops we have overseas or the number of weapons that we send overseas I think is just crazy. I think the amount that we have spent on these wars that have been added to our debt have weakened our security. I think the fact that we have lost so many incredibly brave men and women to these conflicts is a tragedy. What the gentleman from Vermont raised was the issue that I think is on a lot of our constituents' minds, and that is what is going to happen in Syria. The real problem with this rule, Mr. Speaker, can be seen in the debate surrounding Syria. There is a real split when it comes to Syria. There are some who don't believe we should get involved at all; and there are others, like Senator McCain, leading the Republicans over in the Senate, saying we ought to do more, we ought to get more involved in Syria.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just remind my colleagues again why these are tough budgetary times. This Defense bill is being treated differently than appropriations bills that actually fund needs right here in the United States. I would remind my colleagues that national defense also includes what happens here in the United States--whether people have housing, whether people have food, whether or not people have good health care, whether or not we have good roads and good bridges, whether or not we have jobs. All these domestic needs are being ignored. In fact, they are being obliterated by the Republican numbers in the appropriations process. Mr. Speaker, at this point I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, we're here today to consider one rule for two appropriations bills, the Department of Defense appropriations bill and the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill. While the T-HUD bill will be considered under an open rule--that is, if it's ever considered in this House at all--the Defense appropriations bill is another story. That's because the FY 2014 Defense appropriations bill is not an open rule. This bill is structured. Many good amendments were denied. The Rules Committee cherry-picked amendments that could be considered and prevented many germane amendments from being considered today. In fact, Mr. Speaker, last month, Speaker Boehner touted Republican use of open rules for appropriations bills. But now, just 1 month later, this Tea Party-run House is limiting debate on the Defense bill just to avoid taking some tough votes. My colleague said that they made exceptions and limited amendments with regard to Egypt, Syria, and the NSA. Those were the only three areas, he said, that they purposefully made exceptions. Well, those are the three most important areas before us. Those are the things that our constituents want to make sure that we are debating and deliberating on. Let me note another area where this structured rule inhibits having a robust debate on a critical issue, namely, the debate on the need for greater transparency and oversight of NSA collection of telephone and email records from people who are not under any suspicion or investigation whatsoever. I'm grateful that a couple of amendments were made in order on this subject, but they were only given 15 minutes of debate apiece. That's it. This is a pretty big issue. We all want to provide our law enforcement officials with the tools they need to safeguard our country from potential terrorist attacks. But we also want to protect the basic rights and liberties guaranteed to all Americans from unwanted and unwarranted searches and invasion of privacy by government agencies. Issues of transparency, accountability and oversight are critical duties and responsibilities not just of the executive branch but of Congress. Who is providing the necessary oversight of all of this massive data collection? Who is watching the watchers? Isn't it time for Congress to take a serious review of how the law is being implemented, how it is touching and affecting all Americans, and whether any of those laws and their implementation now require changes? I, for one, welcome such a debate, which I hope will occur at least in a limited fashion on the amendments that were made in order under this structured rule. I believe a far better debate would have occurred under an open rule, where all Members could have voiced their concerns and outlined proposals for change. Regrettably, this will not happen under the time restrictions of this structured rule. Turning to the T-HUD appropriations bill, I am disappointed and concerned with the committee's proposed funding level for the Community Development Block Grant program, known as CDBG. The bill cuts CDBG from $3.071 billion in FY13 to $1.637 billion in FY14, almost halving the program and bringing it to a historic low in terms of funding. CDBG funds are working in neighborhoods throughout our country, and this proposed reduction will negatively impact local economies and economic development projects all over the country. Mr. Speaker, I will insert into the Record a bipartisan letter signed by 101 Members of the House of Representatives expressing support for effective CDBG funding levels. If this bill is actually considered by this body before the end of the fiscal year, I hope there will be an attempt to restore funding for this critically important program. Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, June 25, 2013. Hon. Tom Latham, Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies, Washington, DC. Hon. Ed Pastor, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Transportation Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Latham and Ranking Member Pastor: We write to share our concern about the impact the proposed funding levels for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program in House Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Subcommittee-passed bill would have on redevelopment authorities and local municipalities. While we understand the difficult fiscal decisions we must make in Washington, the proposed bill reduces CDBG formula grants by nearly 50 percent, from $3.071 billion in FY2013 to $1.637 billion in FY2014. This proposed funding level also marks an historic low since the program's beginnings in the 1970s. As you know, 144 Members signed a bipartisan letter in April for your review in developing FY2014 legislation. The letter supported maintaining the funding levels that the subcommittee recommended last year. The now proposed, substantial reduction--essentially halving the program--would impact local economies, threaten the program's national scope, curtail on-the-ground lead-abatement projects helping to revitalize our older cities, and reduce ongoing capabilities to aid veterans and other workforce training services. We are concerned about the implications of this reduction, especially as the program's funds have already fallen substantially--by nearly $1 billion since FY2010. As you know, CDBG is largely managed by local municipalities, providing flexibility and tailored needs in our local economies and remains a lifeline for families and communities. For example, HUD reports that between FY2007 and FY2011, CDBG helped over 174,000 businesses expand economic opportunities and over the last decade, CDBG programs have rehabilitated more than 1.4 million homes for low- and moderate-income homeowners and renters. As a proven program with an effective track record, it serves an ongoing, continual need that not only impacts lives, but provides a documented return on its investment to leverage local dollars: Every $1.00 of CDBG leverages an additional $3.55 in non-CDBG funding, according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The pressing need in the current economy for these funds remains critical. We look forward to working with you to maintain effective funding levels for this work. If we can provide any further information, please contact Kate Ostrander, Legislative Director of the Northeast-Midwest Congressional Coalition, at 6-6106 or kate.ostrander@mail .house.gov. Thank you for your consideration and support. Sincerely, Mike Kelly; Michael R. Turner; Robert A. Brady; Lou Barletta; Peter T. King; David B. McKinley; James P. McGovern; Chaka Fattah; Christopher P. Gibson; Emanuel Cleaver; Niki Tsongas; Jim Gerlach; Stevan Pearce; Marcia L. Fudge; Peter Welch; Elijah E. Cummings; John K. Delaney; Tony Cardenas; Matt A. Cartwright; Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan. Colleen W. Hanabusa; Nick J. Rahall, II; Wm. Lacy Clay; John D. Dingell; Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr.; Chris Van Hollen; Juan Vargas; Mark Takano; Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott; Mike Doyle; Ann M. Kuster; William R. Keating; Danny K. Davis; Jim Matheson; Bobby L. Rush; Carolyn McCarthy; Alcee L. Hastings; Janice D. Schakowsky; Linda T. Sanchez; Doris O. Matsui. Brian Higgins; Louise McIntosh Slaughter; Eliot L. Engel; Ruben Hinojosa; Albio Sires; Yvette D. Clarke; Charles B. Rangel; Diana DeGette; John Conyers, Jr.; Richard M. Nolan; Paul Tonko; Gene Green; James A. Himes; Anna G. Eshoo; Suzan K. DelBene; Sander M. Levin; Ron Kind; David Loebsack; Grace F. Napolitano; Michael H. Michaud. Corrine Brown; John F. Tierney; Lloyd Doggett; Bradley S. Schneider; Joyce Beatty; Steven A. Horsford; Judy Chu; Carol Shea-Porter; Gloria Negrete McLeod; Jerrold Nadler; Louis Capps, Gwen Moore; Tammy Duckworth; David N. Cicilline; John A. Yarmuth; Cedric L. Richmond; Pete P. Gallego; Suzanne Bonamici; Theodore E. Deutch; Loretta Sanchez. Michael E. Capuano; Donna M. Christensen; Debbie Wasserman Schultz; Ann Kirpatrick; Janice Hahn; Gerald E. Connolly; Filemon Vela; Julia Brownley; Timothy J. Walz; Jim Costa; Joe Garcia; Raul M. Grijalva; Stephen F. Lynch; Earl Blumenauer; Jared Huffman; Xavier Becerra; Maxine Waters; Bill Pascrell, Jr.; Eleanor Holmes Norton; Jared Polis; Patrick Murphy. Now, as for the Department of Defense appropriations bill, everyone in this House on both sides of the aisle supports our men and women in uniform. We want to make sure that they have the equipment, the training, and the logistical support they need to carry out their duties and missions, and that they have peace of mind that their families are being taken care of when they're deployed to perilous places abroad. We want the most effective and efficient modern military in the world. There is no argument and no debate over these priorities in this House. However, that doesn't mean we should just throw money at the Pentagon, which is infamous for wasting tens of billions of taxpayer dollars each and every year for as long as I can remember. In these tough budget times, we need to be smart with our money, and that includes with our defense dollars. I strongly believe that we could make better choices if the Republican majority would recognize that we need to negotiate a balanced approach to our national budget in order to get rid of the harsh and indiscriminate cuts caused by sequestration and I appeal to them to appoint conferees so that we can begin negotiations with the Senate on the budget. Now, I thought that was a priority for the House Republican leadership, but clearly I was wrong, as they have let budget negotiations languish for months. Now, in the absence of a balanced approach to the budget, which would have provided greater clarity to our defense priorities, I have several concerns about the fiscal year 2014 Defense appropriations bill. First, the bill neither reflects the current levels of defense spending that are the result of the current sequestration, nor does it reflect the next round of potential sequestration cuts that will go into effect for FY 2014. This would be easier to understand if the Republican majority showed any inclination to go to conference with the Senate on the budget resolution or return to serious negotiations with the White House on an overarching budget agreement. But the Republican leadership has stated clearly, time and again, that it will not negotiate a balanced and comprehensive solution to resolve our overall budget spending, revenue and deficit issues. While critical domestic priorities are facing deep cuts in other appropriations bills, and the Appropriations Committee is demanding sequestration cuts be included in these bills, the Defense bill sails on through relatively untouched. In reality, it's those painful and draconian cuts in the other appropriations bills that allow this Defense bill to emerge relatively unscathed. So let me share with my House colleagues a few words from the Statement of Administration Policy on the Defense appropriations bill: Enacting H.R. 2397--while adhering to the overall spending limits in the House budget's top-line discretionary level for fiscal year 2014--would hurt our economy and require draconian cuts to middle class priorities. These cuts could result in hundreds of thousands of low-income children losing access to Head Start programs, tens of thousands of children with disabilities losing Federal funding for their special education teachers and aides, thousands of Federal agents who cannot enforce drug laws, combat violent crime, or apprehend fugitives, and thousands of scientists without medical grants, which would slow research that could lead to new treatments and cures for diseases like cancer and Alzheimer's, and hurt America's economic competitiveness. The statement goes on to say: Unless this bill passes the Congress in the context of an overall budget framework that supports our recovery and enables sufficient investments in education, infrastructure, innovation, and national security for our economy to compete in the future, the President's senior advisers would recommend that he veto H.R. 2397 and any other legislation that implements the House Republican Budget framework. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record the Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 2397. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC, July 22, 2013. Statement of Administration Policy H.R. 2397--Department of Defense Appropriations Act 2014 (Rep. Rogers, R-KY) The President is committed to our national defense and funding other important priorities within a budget framework that strengthens our economy and advances middle-class priorities. The Administration believes H.R. 2397, making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2014, and for other purposes, funds critical priorities, and looks forward to working on its provisions as part of an acceptable budget framework. However, enacting H.R. 2397, while adhering to the overall spending limits in the House Budget's topline discretionary level for fiscal year (FY) 2014, would hurt our economy and require draconian cuts to middle-class priorities. These cuts could result in hundreds of thousands of low-income children losing access to Head Start programs, tens of thousands of children with disabilities losing Federal funding for their special education teachers and aides, thousands of Federal agents who cannot enforce drug laws, combat violent crime or apprehend fugitives, and thousands of scientists without medical grants, which would slow research that could lead to new treatments and cures for diseases like cancer and Alzheimer's, and hurt America's economic competitiveness. More than three months have passed since the deadline for action and the Congress has yet to appoint conferees and agree on a budget resolution. Prior to consideration of appropriations bills the Congress should complete an appropriate framework for all the appropriations bills. Unless this bill passes the Congress in the context of an overall budget framework that supports our recovery and enables sufficient investments in education, infrastructure, innovation and national security for our economy to compete in the future, the President's senior advisors would recommend that he veto H.R. 2397 and any other legislation that implements the House Republican Budget framework. The Administration would like to take this opportunity to share additional views regarding the Committee's version of the bill. Sexual Assault Prevention and Response. The Administration appreciates the support of the Committee in working to eliminate the threat that sexual assault in the military presents to our Service members and our national security. Detainee Matters. The Administration strongly objects to the provisions of sections 8107 and 8108 that limit the use of funds to transfer detainees and otherwise restrict detainee transfers, which, in certain circumstances, would violate constitutional separation of powers principles. Section 8107 undermines national security and this unnecessarily constrains the Nation's counterterrorism efforts, particularly where Federal courts are the best--or even the only--option for incapacitating dangerous terrorists. For decades, presidents of both political parties have leveraged the flexibility and strength of this country's Federal courts to incapacitate dangerous terrorists and gather critical intelligence. The continued prosecution of terrorists in Federal court is an essential element of counterterrorism efforts--a powerful tool that must remain an available option. Additionally, the restrictions in section 8108 on the transfer of detainees to the United States and to the custody or effective control of foreign countries or entities in the context of an ongoing armed conflict may interfere with the Executive Branch's ability to determine the appropriate disposition of detainees and to make important foreign policy and national security determinations regarding whether and under what circumstances such transfers should occur. In addition, the Administration strongly opposes section 8109, which would prohibit the use of funds to construct, acquire, or modify a detention facility in the United States to house individuals held in the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. This would constrain the flexibility that the Nation's Armed Forces and counterterrorism professionals need to deal with evolving threats, intruding upon the Executive Branch's ability to carry out its mission. Topline Funding Levels. The Administration strongly objects to unrequested Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding in the bill and the reduction of base budget funding relative to the President's request. The FY 2014 Budget carefully aligns program priorities and resources based on the President's strategic guidance, and it fully funds OCO requirements. Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC). The Administration strongly urges the Congress to provide BRAC authorization and funding as requested so that the Department of Defense (DOD) can right-size its infrastructure while providing appropriate transition assistance to affected communities. Without a new round of BRAC, DOD cannot properly align the military's infrastructure with the needs of its evolving force structure, a critical tool for ensuring that limited resources are available to the highest priorities of the warfighter and national security. TRICARE Fees and Co-Payments. The Administration strongly urges the Congress to support its proposed TRICARE fee increases, because military retirees deserve an excellent, sustainable health care benefit. The Administration is disappointed that the Committee has consistently failed to support requested TRICARE fee initiatives that seek to control DOD's spiraling health care costs while keeping retired beneficiaries' share of these costs well below the levels experienced when the TRICARE program was implemented in the mid-1990s. While the bill restores the projected FY 2014 TRICARE savings associated with the initiatives, the Department will be forced to make deeper reductions to troop levels, readiness and modernization accounts in order to offset higher health care costs of over $8 billion through FY 2018. Military Pay. The Administration strongly urges the Congress to include the proposal to set the military pay raise growth at 1.0 percent in FY 2014. Consistent with the views of the uniformed military leadership, the President's Budget requests a 1.0 percent increase to basic pay, a 4.2 percent increase in the Basic Allowance for Housing, and a 3.4 percent increase in Basic Allowance for Subsistence. This total compensation level recognizes the sacrifices made by the men and women in our Armed Forces, while adhering to the current budget constraints faced by DOD. The bill provides $580 million in additional appropriations to fund the pay raise in FY 2014, but it would increase costs by a total of $3.5 billion from FY 2014 through FY 2018. After FY 2014, these future costs would need to be offset by deeper reductions to troop levels, readiness and modernization accounts at a time when statutory spending caps require defense reductions. Building Partner Capacity. The Administration strongly objects to reductions in funds for programs to build partner capacity, which would limit the Department's ability to address current and emerging threats to our national security. The bill provides $83 million less than the $358 million requested for the Global Train and Equip program and does not fund the request for $75 million for the Global Security Contingency Fund. National Intelligence Program Consolidation. The Administration strongly objects to section 8105 because the provision's prohibitions would impinge on the President's prerogatives to seek efficient budget structures and unduly constrain the President in future budget decisions. Unrequested Funding. The Administration is concerned about the billions of dollars provided for items DOD did not request and does not need, such as Light Utility Helicopters, National Guard High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWV), additional medical research, and the modernization of seven cruisers and two amphibious ships. The Administration is also concerned that the bill makes spending on these and other unnecessary items statutorily required, diverting scarce resources from more important defense programs and limiting the Secretary's flexibility to manage the Department efficiently. C-130 Avionics Modernization Program (C-130 AMP). The Administration objects to the $47 million in unrequested funding provided for the C-130 AMP, which would start initial production of C-130 AMP kits for the modernization of earlier generation C-130 airlift aircraft. The President's FY 2013 Budget canceled the C-130 AMP because of its high total program cost of $2.7 billion, and because the aircraft would still be able to perform their missions with less expensive upgrades. In addition, as required by the FY 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, DOD is conducting an independent cost-benefit analysis of the C-130 AMP, and it would be premature to reinstate the program before that study is complete. Advanced Innovative Technologies. The Administration objects to the $115 million cut for Advanced Innovative Technologies, an 88 percent reduction from the President's request, which funds on-going research and development efforts that support the new Defense Strategy and the rebalance to the Asia Pacific. Specifically, this program supports initiatives that would provide cost-effective and cost-imposing capabilities that are critical for meeting the Combatant Commander's objectives in the region. This capability is needed to address real world threats and full funding is required to research, develop and test performance of the Electromagnetic Railgun system. Joint Urgent Operational Needs Fund (JUONF). The Administration objects to the elimination of funding requested for the JUONF. This funding is critical to DOD's ability to quickly respond to urgent operational needs of Combatant Commanders. Elimination of funding may delay fielding of important capabilities that help accomplish critical missions. Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Programs. The Administration objects to the restoration of funding for the STARBASE program, which would perpetuate the Federal Government's fragmented approach to STEM education, whereby more than 220 programs are scattered across 13 agencies. The Administration's proposed reorganization of STEM programs would improve STEM education quality and outcomes across the Federal Government. Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Fund (DAWDF). The Administration opposes the reduction of $205 million from the FY 2014 Budget request for the DAWDF. Failure to provide the full request would require DOD to collect the shortfall between the appropriation and the statutory minimum for DAWDF from other budget accounts. In addition, the Administration opposes appropriations language that would not allow use of prior year expired funds for the FY 2014 DAWDF collection. Components should be allowed to use these funds per the authority provided in current law. Civilian Pay Raise. The Administration urges the Congress to support the proposed 1.0 percent pay increase for Federal civilian employees. As the President stated in his FY 2014 Budget, a permanent pay freeze is neither sustainable nor desirable. Missile Defense. The Administration appreciates the support for DOD's air and missile defense programs, as well as support for the government of Israel's Iron Dome rocket system. Afghanistan Security Forces Fund. The Administration appreciates the Committee's continued strong support for U.S. efforts to build and develop the security forces of Afghanistan. However, the Administration strongly urges the Congress to make $2.6 billion of the $7.7 billion request contingent upon pending policy decisions and the progress made by the Afghan National Security Forces during FY 2014, as requested in the President's Budget. Limitation on Funds Available to Procure Equipment. The Administration appreciates the support of the Committee for a responsive and flexible program to train and equip the security forces of Afghanistan. However, the Administration is concerned that some of the limitations proposed in section 8119 will prevent the Department from meeting critical equipment requirements and delivery timelines for the Afghan National Security Forces and will unnecessarily increase costs for the U.S. taxpayer. The Administration urges the Congress to work with the Department to develop an alternative approach. The Administration looks forward to working with the Congress as the FY 2014 appropriations process moves forward. Finally, and most importantly, Mr. Speaker, this bill not only continues funding for the war in Afghanistan; it also increases the Overseas Contingency Operations account, adding $5 billion more above the Pentagon's request, for a total of $85.8 billion. Now, let me see if I understand this correctly, Mr. Speaker. During the time period when the United States is significantly reducing the size of our forces in Afghanistan, and when we are withdrawing from the war, this bill actually adds $5.1 billion to the OCO account above and beyond what the Pentagon asked for. That is simply crazy, Mr. Speaker. Maybe those extra billions will pay the $70-plus million exit tax that Afghanistan is demanding of the United States to pull out our military equipment. That's not fuzzy math, Mr. Speaker. The word for that is ``extortion.'' My colleague from Vermont (Mr. Welch) had an amendment that simply said that the American taxpayers aren't going to pay this extortion tax that Mr. Karzai is demanding. His amendment wasn't even made in order. It was germane, but it wasn't even made in order. While I appreciate the language in the bill that none of these funds can be used for President Karzai's personal benefit, since we found out earlier this year that he was lining his pockets from a U.S. taxpayer- dollar slush fund, it certainly won't stop Karzai's government from squeezing every last dollar it can from the United States to carry out the military drawdown over the next 15 months. Mr. Speaker, I am sick and I am tired of asking our brave servicemen and -women to fight and die for this corrupt government. While I hope to be surprised, I really have little faith that next year's parliamentary and presidential elections in Afghanistan will be free and fair, let alone usher in a new order committed to eliminating corruption and cronyism. I am sick and tired of U.S. tax dollars being wasted in Afghanistan on military headquarters that will never be used, only to see them built and torn down. I am sick and tired of building roads to nowhere or having our convoys pay a tax to transport troops and much-needed supplies to provinces outside of Kabul. In brief, just like the overwhelming majority of the American people, I want to see this war brought to an end and our troops safely home, reunited with their families and loved ones, and contributing to home communities right here in the United States. Let us be clear, Mr. Speaker: the $85.8 billion total for the OCO account is still designated ``emergency funding.'' That means it is all put on the national credit card. Not a penny of the hundreds of billions of dollars for this war has ever been paid for or offset or balanced with revenues from someplace else in the national budget. We certainly do not need to add even more billions to the OCO account. What we need to do is to end this war as quickly as possible and bring our troops home. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment offered by my good friend and colleague from North Carolina (Mr. Jones). I want to thank him for his long and tireless leadership on ending the war in Afghanistan. He always asks the hard questions--or the questions that no one else wants to take on--because he believes so strongly in standing by our uniformed men and women and their families. In May of 2012, the United States and most of our NATO allies entered into an agreement with Afghanistan called the Strategic Partnership Agreement. That agreement outlined in fairly broad terms how we and our allies will continue to support the security and economic development of Afghanistan over the near and long term. Now, on the positive side, it was this agreement that provided the outline for how the United States would turn over responsibility for combat operations and national security to Afghanistan forces this year and next year in order to draw down our forces and end the war in Afghanistan by the end of next year. Congressman Jones and I would like to see that drawdown happen faster and sooner, but at a minimum, to happen on the time frame outlined by the President. The unknown question is: What happens post-2014? Will the President determine that U.S. troops need to remain in Afghanistan? If so, how many troops, for how long, and for what purpose? Will we continue to train the Afghanistan military and police forces? And if so, how many U.S. troops will be involved? How long will it take to complete that mission? How much will it cost? I believe it is right to demand that Congress specifically authorize the terms and costs of America's continuing involvement in Afghanistan. Congress has put this war on autopilot for too long. It is shameful. We need to take responsibility. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. This is a reasonable, rational amendment. And quite frankly, every one of us, Democrat and Republican, should vote for this.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to join my colleague, Mr. Yoder, in honoring Senator Bob Dole on his 90th birthday. I call my colleagues' attention to the fact that Senator Dole is really quite an extraordinary man and quite a legislator. He understood the importance of bipartisanship. He reached across the aisle and worked with Senator George McGovern on strengthening our antihunger social safety net. They made Food Stamps a better program. They championed WIC and school meals. At a time when some of my colleagues are talking about destroying that bipartisan consensus on making sure that we combat hunger in this country, it is important to remember Senator Dole led, in a bipartisan way, to help the least among us. I want to wish him a happy birthday and many, many more.

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 371 and 372, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, last week marked the third anniversary of when the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for Omar al-Bashir, the sitting President of Sudan, on three counts of genocide related to Darfur. Four years ago, Bashir was indicted on two counts of war crimes and five counts of crimes against humanity. On Sunday, Bashir traveled to Nigeria to a red-carpet welcome and full guard of honor despite demands from human rights activists that Nigeria arrest him to face trial on genocide charges. This is an outrage, Madam Speaker. Congressmen Wolf, Capuano, and I have introduced H.R. 6092, the Sudan Peace, Security and Accountability Act. This bill strengthens sanctions against Sudan and requires a comprehensive strategy to address the many conflicts and human rights crimes occurring in Sudan, including the international strategy to enforce the ICC arrest warrants against Bashir and other Sudanese officials. I ask my House colleagues to join us in this effort, to cosponsor H.R. 1692, and to move it to the House floor for approval in the 113th Congress.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, 18 times this year I've come to this floor and talked about the need to end hunger now. Eighteen times I've defended our Nation's anti-hunger programs, discussed the paradox of hunger and obesity, and talked about hunger among the elderly. Over the past few weeks, this House has voted on two versions of a farm bill reauthorization. The first was defeated after the Republican leadership overreached, not only by cutting the linchpin of our anti- hunger programs, SNAP--formerly known as food stamps--but also by adding poison pill after poison pill amendment to the bill. Last week, the Republican leadership responded to the stinging defeat of their farm bill by stripping out the entire nutrition title while, at the same time, expanding subsidies for highly profitable big agribusinesses. Talk about messed up priorities, Mr. Speaker. By the way, the nutrition title not only includes SNAP, it includes as well funding for food banks and senior anti-hunger programs. Opponents of SNAP like to focus on the idea that SNAP is somehow fraudulent; not just that some SNAP money is being misspent, but that so much is being wasted that we need to drastically rein in the program, regardless of whether SNAP cuts increase hunger in America. We heard these claims time after time during consideration of the two farm bills. Sadly, those who claim rampant fraud, waste, and abuse in SNAP don't let facts get in the way of their arguments. That is because SNAP is among the most effective and efficient, if not the most effective and efficient, federally administered programs. I serve on the House Agriculture Committee, and I took part in an extensive debate over SNAP during both the committee markup and on the House floor. Not one member, Democrat or Republican, on the House Agriculture Committee provided sourced, statistical information on fraud, waste, and abuse in the SNAP program. On top of that, no hearings were held on the SNAP program at all. In fact, I challenged any member of the committee to find any Federal program that has a lower rate of fraud, waste, and abuse. The truth is no one could answer my challenge. Mr. Speaker, according to both the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Office of the Inspector General at USDA, the fraud rates for SNAP are at all-time lows and are going down. On top of that, USDA continues to pursue instances of fraud, waste, and abuse and is prosecuting these cases. Despite the rapid growth in SNAP participation, primarily due to the historic economic recession we are still recovering from, the error rate for SNAP is also at a record low, according to the latest data available. Specifically, 3 percent of all SNAP benefits represented overpayments, meaning they either went to ineligible households or went to eligible households but in excessive amounts. This means that more than 98 percent of SNAP benefits were issued to eligible households. The combined error rate--the total error rate that includes both under- and overpayments--reached an all-time low in 2011, falling to 3.8 percent. These statistics show just how well SNAP is truly managed. But there's even more data to consider. In July, the USDA's Office of Inspector General issued a report on fraud investigations of USDA programs. It showed that fraud in SNAP is limited primarily to a few bad actors. It also showed cases of fraud are far greater in other USDA programs. According to this report, 10 cases involving USDA programs were closed in the past 2 months, and only one of them involved fraud on the part of a SNAP recipient. That's right, only 1 case in 10 had to do with an individual defrauding the SNAP program. In fact, half of those cases dealt with improper use of rural development funds. The remaining four cases all involved SNAP abuse by retailers, not recipients. While this may seem like an innocuous statistic, it goes to the heart of what opponents claim: that SNAP beneficiaries--poor, hungry working Americans--are lazy and want to steal from the Federal Government. Nothing, and I mean nothing, could be further from the truth. SNAP provides a lifeline to hungry Americans, whether they are 1, 10, 25, 50, 75 years old or older. In doing so, SNAP is likely the most effective and efficient program administered by the Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, of course we can make SNAP better. We can make anything better. We can make it more efficient. We can ensure that even more people get the food they need to prevent hunger in America. But we need to address hunger in a holistic and comprehensive way, including the role SNAP plays in preventing and treating hunger. This is why we need a White House Conference on Food and Nutrition if we are going to truly reduce hunger and improve nutrition in this country. We need a plan. We need to get this right. We need some urgency and some leadership on this issue. Mr. Speaker, attacking SNAP, and demonizing those who rely on it to make ends meet isn't just wrong, it's counterproductive. Arbitrarily cutting SNAP will only make hunger in America worse, and it certainly won't reduce the rates of fraud, waste, and abuse. The SNAP program works. While it can always be improved, we can't simply cut our way to a hunger-free society. We must work together if we are going to end hunger now.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I'm the final speaker on our side, so I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, this is about our values. This is about what we stand for. The constant attacks by some of my Republican friends, by many on the other side of the aisle, on SNAP, on poor people, on the vulnerable is just plain wrong. And, quite frankly, it's offensive. Three weeks ago, this farm bill failed in this House because the Republicans cannot govern. You know, you are in control. Sixty-two of your Members, including five committee chairs, voted ``no.'' To suggest that somehow Democrats should have carried this bill is ludicrous because I want to make one thing clear: we are not going to vote for a bill that sticks it to poor people, and that's exactly what this bill does. The bill that you had on the floor that threw 2 million people off SNAP was unacceptable, and we could not vote for that. There are 50 million people in this country who are hungry; 17 million of them are children. Millions of people who are on SNAP work for a living. They go to work every day; but they earn so little, they still qualify for this benefit. These are our neighbors. These are our brothers; these are our sisters. Please do not turn your backs on them. Please do not turn your backs on these people. We are a better country than that. Please don't be so callous, because that's what this is about, when you throw 2 million people off this benefit, or even more. Because we have no idea what was promised to get votes on this current bill right now. We have no idea how much you're going to cut the SNAP program or whether you're going to sunset it, because none of us know what was decided in the Republican Conference. But when you cut people who are poor, when you deny them the benefit of food, which should be a right in this country, that is callous. That is cruel. We should not be doing that. We should be about helping people, not hurting people. So have a heart. Where's your conscience? What makes this country great, what makes America great is that we've had a tradition for caring for the least among us. That's why we're so angry over here, because all of a sudden it seems like we're turning our backs on the poor. There used to be a bipartisan consensus when it came to making sure that the hungry in this country get enough to eat. There's a long history of bipartisanship on this. All of a sudden this has become a partisan issue, and the target, so that you can try to balance the budget, has been placed right on the programs like SNAP, nutrition programs, programs that feed our senior citizens, provide our children meals in schools. You've even gone after WIC. Enough. Enough. We can do better. We can have a bipartisan farm bill if you will move over to our side and understand that we have an obligation to take care of the most vulnerable. So vote ``no'' on this rule. Vote ``no'' on the underlying bill. We can do so much better. I yield back the balance of my time.