Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 3 minutes to my Republican colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith), the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee. (Mr. SMITH of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman from Utah 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. Further parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker.

Mr. McGOVERN. Is it true that the gentleman is continuing to prevent the House from debating and voting on the McGovern-Jones amendment simply because the Republican leadership is afraid it will pass?

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Agriculture Committee, I am pleased to recognize the 150th birthday of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The good work of USDA and the important programs administered by USDA reach all of us every day, often more than most of us realize. In coordination with our farmers and ranchers, USDA ensures that we have a safe and abundant food supply. USDA protects the quality of our meat and poultry; feeds children and low income Americans through the nutrition programs; and supports rural Americans with an array of basic programs, including broadband, housing and economic development. As Co-Chair of the House Hunger Caucus, along with my good friend Representative Jo Ann Emerson, I am committed to ending hunger in the United States and around the world. I want to praise USDA's robust domestic programs to help feed the most vulnerable among us and improve nutrition. These safety net programs, including SNAP, the Child Nutrition Programs, and WIC are vitally important to helping those in need put food on the table during economic hard times and helping make sure no one especially seniors and children--goes to bed hungry in America. The Child Nutrition Programs including the National School Lunch Program are among the most important and successful anti- hunger and nutrition programs in the country. Thanks to diligent oversight by USDA, and significant reforms in the program, SNAP is one of the most effective and efficient federal programs. It is a testament to USDA's longstanding commitment to the highest standards and oversight of its programs. Globally, the impact of USDA is just as great. I have long promoted an integrated government-wide approach to addressing global hunger and food insecurity. Beginning with the Bush Administration and expanding under the leadership of President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack and USAID Administrator Raj Shah, I am proud to say that global food security programs are stronger than ever. In particular, I am proud to support USDA's signature role in global agricultural development, emergency food aid, and international school feeding programs. Agriculture is not just a nostalgic reflection of the past, it is a critical part of contemporary American life and the U.S. economy. I would like to take this opportunity to salute the thousands of Massachusetts small farmers who contribute so much not only to the economy, but to the nutrition and health of the people of Massachusetts, New England and the nation. It has been such a privilege for me to visit their farms, dairies and gardens and witness first-hand the great work they are doing. I am pleased to extend my heartiest birthday wishes to USDA on this landmark anniversary, and I wish them the very best success in supporting agricultural development here at home and around the world in the next 150 years.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to the gentleman. First of all, no one here on our side is arguing that sequestration should go into effect. We don't think that's good for our country, but we think that the Republican reconciliation bill is even worse for our country because of the cuts in so many programs that actually help our people. There's no balance in there. The gentleman can say I'm all for balance. There's none in your reconciliation bill. It's all cuts to programs that actually help the people of this country. And, finally, I'd just say we have an alternative to sequestration. Mr. Van Hollen brought that before the Rules Committee last night. The Rules Committee Republicans, every single one of them, voted ``no.'' Mr. Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong opposition to this rule. It is totally closed, and it denies Democrats, led by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), the substitute. We're not asking for dozens of amendments or something that hasn't been done in the past with regards to reconciliation bills. All we are asking for is one vote on our substitute, one vote on what we believe is a better alternative to the Republican bill. Last night in the Rules Committee, every single Republican--every single one of them--voted to deny Democrats that opportunity. Mr. Speaker, as one who does not believe in arbitrary and thoughtless across-the-board cuts as a way to balance our budget, I want to support Mr. Van Hollen's substitute in order to avoid the implementation of the Budget Control Act's sequester. In my opinion, to allow this sequester to go into full effect would be bad for the country. We are here in this awful mess because a so-called supercommittee failed to reach agreement last fall on a comprehensive and balanced deficit-reduction plan due in very large part to the absolute refusal of Republicans to put revenues on the table. Bowles-Simpson, Rivlin- Domenici, and the Gang of Six all had deficit-reduction proposals that sought to be balanced with both spending cuts and revenues. They sought to be fair. They realized that you cannot solve our long-term fiscal problems by slashing and burning the last century of social progress in America. But, today, my Republican friends have brought to the floor a reconciliation bill that actually makes sequestration look good. What's going on here is very simple--very troubling, but very simple. They are protecting the massive Pentagon budget and demanding no accountability by exempting it from sequestration and finding even deeper cuts in programs that benefit the people of this country. The bill before us would create a government where there is no conscience, where the wealthy and well connected are protected and enriched, and where the middle class, the poor, and the vulnerable are essentially forgotten. I have never seen anything like this. It is outrageous. It takes my breath away. My friends won't cut billions in subsidies for Big Oil at a time when oil companies are making record profits and gauging Americans at the pump. They won't address the inequities of the Tax Code, which allows billionaire Warren Buffett to pay a lower tax rate than his secretary. The revenues from fixing these two unjust policies alone would result in billions and billions and billions of dollars in deficit reduction. But the Republicans have protected Big Oil, and they've protected the billionaires. However, my Republican friends take a meat-ax to SNAP, formerly known as food stamps. This is a program to help poor people afford food. My friends on the other side of the aisle should heed the words of President John F. Kennedy: If a free society will not help the many who are poor, they cannot save the few who are rich. Mr. Speaker, we are one country. We should care about one another, especially those who are most vulnerable. That's not a weakness or something we should be ashamed of. Rather, it's something that makes us strong and great. As my friends know, I have spent a lot of time and effort in Congress on the issues of hunger, food insecurity, and nutrition. Tens of millions of our fellow citizens don't have enough to eat, and every single one of us--Democrats and Republicans alike--should be ashamed. And that's why I am so outraged by the $36 billion in SNAP cuts. This notion that SNAP promotes a culture of dependency, that SNAP is a golden ticket to prosperity is just wrong. Some on the Republican side have even claimed that SNAP enslaves Americans. Give me a break. In fact, even in 2010, when unemployment was close to 10 percent and jobs were scarce, the majority of SNAP households with a nondisabled working-age adult were working households--working households. Working families are trying to earn more. No one wakes up in the morning dreaming to be on SNAP, but these are tough economic times. Some people have no choice. But we know that SNAP enrollment and spending on SNAP will go down as the economy improves, as families see their incomes rise and no longer need SNAP to feed their families. Don't take my word for it. This is directly from the Congressional Budget Office. Of course, last night in the Rules Committee, we heard the tired line that there's a lot of abuse in the SNAP program. We heard that there are countless numbers of people receiving benefits who do not deserve them. That, Mr. Speaker, is simply not true. It's a common and unfortunate misconception that SNAP is rife with fraud, waste, and abuse. Many have decried SNAP as a handout that can be sold or traded for alcohol and other items that shouldn't be purchased with taxpayer funds. It cannot. And to the extent that there is abuse, the USDA is cracking down on it. SNAP is both effective and efficient. In fact, the error rate for SNAP is not only at an all-time low, but it has among the lowest--if not the lowest--error rate of any Federal program. If only we could find a program at the Pentagon that had such a low error rate. Last night we also heard about categorical eligibility, a process in which a low-income person is automatically eligible for food stamps if they are already enrolled in another low-income assistance program. Categorical eligibility--and I think it's important to state this because there's such misconception here. Categorical eligibility makes it easier for poor people, those people who are already approved for low-income assistance programs, to receive SNAP benefits. But it also makes it easier on the States that have to administer these programs. This saves time and money and paperwork, because the people who are already eligible for similarly administered benefits do not have to reapply for SNAP, and States do not have to waste workers' hours processing paperwork for people who are already eligible based on their incomes. Categorical eligibility does not mean that people who don't qualify for SNAP get those benefits. To the contrary, people still have to qualify for the program to receive food. Any claim that this is a fraudulent practice or that it is rife with abuse is just another falsehood and smear against one of the most efficient Federal programs. The demonization of SNAP and other food and nutrition programs by my Republican friends must come to an end. We have an obligation in this country to provide a circle of protection for the most vulnerable. Cutting $36 billion means that more than 22 million households will see a cut in their benefit. This means 22 million families will have less food tomorrow than they do today. In fact, 2 million people would be cut from the SNAP program altogether. Another 280,000 kids will lose access to free school meals. My friends on the other side of the aisle don't like to hear this, but sometimes the truth hurts. If this bill before us becomes law, it will take food out of the mouths of children in America, all in the name of protecting tax cuts for the wealthy and increased Pentagon spending. The Republican reconciliation bill threatens Medicare, it threatens children's programs, it threatens educational programs, as well as programs that support our infrastructure. In short, if this were to be adopted as law, it would threaten our economy as a whole. And the bill not only protects the Pentagon budget, it increases it by billions of dollars. Does anyone here honestly believe there's not a single dollar to be saved anywhere in the Pentagon? If you do, you're not reading the newspapers. It's there in front of us every single day, the abuse that goes on. No-bid defense contractors. I can go on and on and on. We have, and will continue to have, the strongest military on the face of the Earth. But at some point national security must mean more than throwing billions of dollars at unnecessary nuclear weapons or at pie-in-the sky Star Wars programs that will never actually materialize. But national security has to mean taking care of our own people. It means educating our children. It means an infrastructure that isn't crumbling around us. It means clean air and clean water and a health care system that works. Those should be our priorities. But sadly, those are not the priorities in the bill before us today. Of course, Senator Reid says the bill is dead in the water in the Senate. At a press conference yesterday, the Senate Majority Leader said: As long as Republicans refuse to consider a more reasonable approach, one that asks every American to pay his fair share while making difficult choices to reduce spending, the sequester is the only path forward. That's a pretty clear statement that the Senate will not consider this bill. Quite frankly, it's the right thing to do. A reasonable approach is what the American people want. Yes, they want us to get our fiscal house in order. They want us to reduce the deficit in a fair way so that the wealthiest among us pay their fair share. But mostly the American people want jobs, something the House Republican leadership continues to ignore. The American people know that the best way to bring this deficit down is through job creation. They want the economy to improve. They want their lives to get better. This bill does not do that. Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by quoting President Dwight Eisenhower in a speech he made in 1953: Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. I'm afraid, Mr. Speaker, that President Eisenhower wouldn't recognize today's Republican Party. We should reject this closed rule and the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I think what we're talking about here today are two different visions for this country. The Republicans have their vision that is outlined in their reconciliation package. Mr. Van Hollen, I think, has adequately summarized what the Democratic priorities are. The main difference is that, in their proposal, there is no balance. It's a meat-ax approach to everything--cut, cut, cut, cut--regardless of what it means to the people of this country. What we're trying to do and, quite frankly, what other bipartisan commissions have recommended, is a more balanced approach: we cut spending, but there are also some revenues to be raised. At a time in our country when we have a Tax Code that allows Warren Buffett to pay a lower tax rate than his secretary, it seems that it's time for a little fairness, and that's all we're asking for here. That's all we're asking for--a balanced, fair approach. We are prepared to make the tough choices. Yes, some of those tough choices mean cuts. But I'd say to the Republicans that some of those tough choices may mean you'll have to go back on the pledge that you signed with Grover Norquist, that you'll have to support closing tax loopholes and raising taxes on the wealthiest individuals in this country. Mr. Speaker, I would at this time like to insert in the Record a letter from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and I want to read one paragraph from that letter, which is to the Members of Congress: The Catholic bishops of the United States recognize the serious deficits our country faces, and we acknowledge that Congress must make difficult decisions about how to allocate burdens and sacrifices and balance resources and needs. However, deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility efforts must protect and not undermine the needs of poor and vulnerable people. The proposed cuts to programs in the budget reconciliation fail this basic moral test. The catechism of the Catholic Church states it is the proper role of government to ``make accessible to each what is needed to lead a truly human life: food, clothing, health, work, education and culture, suitable information, the right to establish a family, and so on.'' Poor and vulnerable people do not have powerful lobbyists to advocate their interests, but they have the most compelling needs. Mr. Speaker, that paragraph sums up what I feel and what so many of us feel about what my friends on the other side of the aisle are doing. Yes, we have to make tough choices, but why are always the tough choices on the backs of middle-income families and on the backs of the poor? There are people in this country who are hungry. We are the richest country on the planet, and we have hungry people here. Yet what is our response? It's not to figure out a way to help deal with this terrible scourge. Our response--their response--is to take a meat-ax approach to SNAP, which will cut benefits. That's what the CBO says, that it will cut benefits and that people will have less food tomorrow than they have today if this is to become law. I think that's a horrible choice. That's not a choice we should be discussing on the floor. Yes, let's make these programs more efficient. But I'm going to tell you the SNAP Program is a hell of a lot more efficient than the Pentagon--the waste, the fraud, and the abuse in the Pentagon, the wasteful weapons systems in the Pentagon. I want to tell you that I don't care what Leon Panetta says. There are savings to be found in the Pentagon's budget, and we ought to go after that. We ought to make sure that Donald Trump pays his fair share in taxes, and we ought to close these corporate tax loopholes that allow corporations to get away with paying no taxes. Middle-income families can't do that. This is about fairness. That's what we're looking for--fairness and balance. This is a tough time. But rather than following the European model--which my friends seem to love, a model of austerity and of cut, cut, cut, cut, which is not very popular, as they're seeing--what we're trying to do here is to make responsible cutbacks and responsible investments: investing in a robust highway bill to put people back to work, investing in education to make sure our young people are prepared to compete in the 21st century economy, and, yes, investing in the social safety net and investing in programs that provide a circle of protection to the poor and the most vulnerable. There is nothing wrong with that. We should be proud of the fact that we are a country that cares. Let's not give that up. That's a strength. It's not a weakness. It's a strength. I say to my colleagues that my biggest problem with what the Republicans are doing is that it fails that test. What it does is it goes after the most vulnerable in a way that, I think, is cruel and wrong. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and to defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time. Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development, Washington, DC, May 8, 2012. U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative: As you vote on a reconciliation package for the fiscal year 2013 budget, I would like to affirm the principle contained in the Committee Report that the ``budget starts with the proposition that first, Congress must do no harm.'' In this light, I urge you to ensure all policies meet the moral criteria established by the Catholic bishops of the United States to create a circle of protection around programs that serve poor and vulnerable people and communities: 1. Every budget decision should be assessed by whether it protects or threatens human life and dignity. 2. A central moral measure of any budget proposal is how it affects the lives and dignity of ``the least of these'' (Matthew 25). The needs of those who are hungry and homeless, without work or in poverty should come first. 3. Government and other institutions have a shared responsibility to promote the common good of all, especially ordinary workers and families who struggle to live in dignity in difficult economic times. A just framework for future budgets cannot rely on disproportionate cuts in essential services to poor persons; it requires shared sacrifice by all, including raising adequate revenues, eliminating unnecessary military and other spending, and addressing the long-term costs of health insurance and retirement programs fairly. I reiterate our strong opposition to an unfair proposal that would alter the Child Tax Credit to exclude children of hard-working, immigrant families. The bishops' conference has long supported the Child Tax Credit because it is pro-work, pro-family, and one of the most effective antipoverty programs in our nation. Denying the credit to children of working poor immigrant families--the large majority of whom are American citizens--would hurt vulnerable kids, increase poverty, and would not advance the common good. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as food stamps), provides vital food security to families during tough economic times. It is estimated that cuts proposed in this bill would deny assistance to two million families, and cut the benefit for everyone else. No poor family that receives food assistance would be unaffected, constituting a direct threat to their human dignity. If savings in agricultural programs need to be achieved, subsidies and direct payments can be reduced and targeted to small and moderate-sized farms. The Social Services Block Grant is an important source of funding for programs throughout the country that serve vulnerable members of our communities--the homeless, the elderly, people with disabilities, children living in poverty, and abuse victims. We should prioritize programs that serve ``the least of these,'' not eliminate them. The Catholic bishops of the United States recognize the serious deficits our country faces, and we acknowledge that Congress must make difficult decisions about how to allocate burdens and sacrifices and balance resources and needs. However, deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility efforts must protect and not undermine the needs of poor and vulnerable people. The proposed cuts to programs in the budget reconciliation fail this basic moral test. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states it is the proper role of government to ``make accessible to each what is needed to lead a truly human life: food, clothing, health, work, education and culture, suitable information, the right to establish a family, and so on'' (no. 1908). Poor and vulnerable people do not have powerful lobbyists to advocate their interests, but they have the most compelling needs. As you pursue responsible deficit reduction, the Catholic bishops join other faith leaders and people of good will urging you to protect the lives and dignity of poor and vulnerable families by putting a circle of protection around these essential programs and to refrain from cutting programs that serve them. Sincerely, Most Reverend Stephen E. Blaire, Chairman, Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I'm proud to yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. McGOVERN. I'm it.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. What galls me is that the Republican majority is balancing the budget on the backs of the most vulnerable in this country, on the poorest of the poor. The gentleman talks about the CBO. The CBO says that cutting $36 billion from the SNAP program means that more than 22 million households will see a cut in their benefits. It means that 22 million families will have less food tomorrow than they do today. In fact, 2 million people would be cut from SNAP altogether. That is not my making up numbers. That's the CBO. That's where I get that from. I think that's cruel and inhumane during one of the worst economic crises that we've faced. Yes, we have to balance the budget, and we have to make tough choices, but why does it have to be on the backs of the most vulnerable? Why can't Donald Trump pay a couple of more dollars in taxes? Why can't we end the subsidies to Big Oil? Why can't we make it so that Warren Buffett pays the same tax rate as his secretary? That's all we're saying here. Your reconciliation bill represents your priorities. What we're arguing is that your priorities are wrong and bad for the country. We have an alternative. You won't even let us have the opportunity to debate that alternative on the floor. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia, my friend, Mr. Woodall, 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. I yield myself 30 seconds, Mr. Speaker. The gentleman is wrong. He's just wrong when he talks about the abuse of the SNAP program, that people are somehow getting benefits that they're not entitled to. And the demagoguery that's going on with regard to categorical eligibility is just inexcusable. That actually cuts paperwork and bureaucracy at a State level, and it helps people who are eligible to get the benefits. I'd also say to the gentleman, he gets up on the floor and talks about this payroll tax cut for Members of Congress. That was a payroll tax cut for everybody. Now, if you wanted to exempt Members of Congress, that would be minuscule. That would do nothing to provide any benefit to anyone. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to this closed rule to let the House work its will and to give Mr. Van Hollen's substitute an up-or-down vote in the House. It deserves more than a procedural vote. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, to insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with extraneous materials, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. McGOVERN. Just so the gentleman understands, the General Accountability Office says the error rate in the SNAP program is less than 3 percent. What is he talking about when people are getting benefits that they don't deserve? I'd like to know the numbers of that. How much?

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume just to reemphasize the point that Mr. Van Hollen made. You know, the Rules Committee has the right to be able to waive the rules to bring any piece of legislation to the floor. And as Mr. Van Hollen rightly pointed out, in the report on this rule, the Republicans waive, implement waivers because their proposal, without these waivers, would violate the rules. And so, you know, my friend talks about that this shouldn't be a partisan discussion. I would just say to my friend, the reason that this is a partisan discussion is because the Republicans have made it such by denying us the right to come to the floor and offer our substitute, not as a procedural matter, but as a real substitute. You have politicized this debate. You have shut us out, and that is why there is frustration. And I just want to say one other thing again because I am so sick and tired of the demonization of programs that benefit poor people in this country, especially the SNAP program. My friend was talking about all of this money that we invested in SNAP as if somehow we were giving these very generous benefits out. Just for the record, in 2002, the average SNAP benefit was $1 per meal per day per person--$1. With all of the improvements we have made, today it is about $1.50 per meal per day; and it is going to go down next year because of cutbacks we've already made in this program, unfortunately, to offset other things over the past few years. That means in a 10-year period that we have increased this benefit by 50 cents per meal. Now, I don't know about my friend, but $1.50 doesn't go very far today. So when we're talking about trying to help people get through this economic crisis, that's what we're talking about. So this is not some extravagant, overly generous benefit. That's what it is. That's what it is. And rather than cutting waste in the Pentagon budget, which we all know exists, you protect the Pentagon budget. Rather than going after subsidies for oil companies and going after billionaire tax breaks, you protect all of that. And where do you go to find the savings? From programs that help the poorest of the poor. I mean, it's outrageous. Mr. Speaker, at this point I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), the ranking member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Dr. F.X. James Kenealy for his successful tenure as Chair of the Massachusetts Medical Society Committee on Legislation. Dr. Kenealy is a practicing otolaryngologist and a partner at Metro West ENT Associates, with locations in Framingham and Milford, Massachusetts. The Massachusetts Medical Society Committee on Legislation is comprised of physicians responsible for advising the Society on its legislative positions at both the federal and state levels. Dr. Kenealy led the committee through its negotiations on some of the most pivotal legislative issues of this decade, including the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. He masterfully led the Committee and helped establish the Massachusetts Medical Society as a leading voice on health care reform initiatives in Massachusetts, many of which have served as the model for national legislation. Under his tutelage, physicians in Massachusetts have become better informed and more engaged in the grassroots legislative process. Dr. Kenealy's commitment to his family, patients, local community, and the legislative process are exemplary. He brings his expertise as a physician to public policy discussions and reminds us how essential civic engagement is to the democratic process. I wish Dr. Kenealy continued success and happiness in his future pursuits and with his family, Vanessa and Aidan.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend and congratulate Dr. Lynda Young on her successful term as President of the Massachusetts Medical Society. Dr. Young has a long and distinguished record of activity in organized medicine. She practiced at Chandler Pediatrics in Worcester, Massachusetts for 34 years and was Chief of the Division of Community Pediatrics at the University of Massachusetts Memorial Children's Medical Center for over 30 years. During her presidency, Dr. Young expertly and deftly represented the interests of physicians and their patients throughout the pioneering state negotiations over health care delivery and payment reform. At the national level, her expertise and leadership style have frequently been recognized as other policymakers learn from the Massachusetts experience. She has also served as president of the Massachusetts Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics and has chaired its Committee on Continuing Education. A past president of the Worcester District Medical Society, she has held every office in the district. She has served as MMS President-Elect and Vice President, respectively, and has been a member of the Board of Trustees and House of Delegates. Dr. Young's dedication to her patients, her family and physician colleagues has earned her a number of professional and civic accolades, including from the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Pernet Family Health Service, the YWCA of Central Massachusetts, the Montachusett Girl Scout Council, Notre Dame Academy in Worcester, and the City of Worcester's Advisory Committee on the Status of Women. This year Dr. Young will serve as the commencement speaker at the Mass. College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, where she will receive an honorary Doctorate of Science. In addition to her busy pediatric practice, Dr. Young is a respected presence in the Worcester community. She is active in a number of Worcester organizations, serving as a member of the Board of Directors of the Health Foundation of Central Massachusetts, the International Center of Worcester, the Parent Family Health Service, and the City of Worcester Board of Health, among others. I have had the utmost pleasure of knowing Dr. Young both professionally and personally for a number of years, including as my own children's pediatrician. Dr. Young epitomizes the compassionate pediatrician. Her exuberance and enthusiasm for her young patients are matched only by her expertise and medical knowledge. I want to thank Dr. Young for her immense contributions and dedication to the pediatric and larger medical community in Central Massachusetts, and I wish her continued happiness with her family, Dr. Bob Sorrenti, their two sons and daughters-in-law and their precious grandson, Jack.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, in late 2010 a remarkable and innovative project was established to use real-time satellite imagery to monitor and document the humanitarian and human rights situation on-the-ground in Sudan. The idea was the brainchild of activist and actor George Clooney and came into being through a remarkable collaboration between Clooney's humanitarian foundation Not on Our Watch, the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and the incredible generosity of DigitalGlobal, the commercial satellite company that has donated thousands of images of activities taking place on-the-ground in Sudan. Through these images, the world has seen images in southern Sudan that may be mass graves, and others documenting military attacks on civilian targets. The project is an invaluable tool not only for understanding what is happening in real-time in Sudan, but in providing evidence that may one day be used in international trials for war crimes committed against Sudan's defenseless civilian population. A story about how this project was set up and the team of Harvard faculty, students and interns who monitor and analyze the satellite imagery was published in the April 29th edition of the Boston Globe Sunday Magazine. I salute the Satellite Sentinel Project and all its collaborators for their singular contribution in documenting the human rights and humanitarian reality in Sudan. Attachment: [From the Boston Globe Sunday Magazine, Apr. 29, 2012] SpyLab: How a Team of Harvard Geeks Is Using A Satellite--Plus A Little Help From George Clooney--To Rewrite the Rules of Humanitarianism (By Michael Blanding) Late-afternoon light slants outside the windows of a Harvard Square conference room where half a dozen twenty- and thirty-somethings huddle around a table covered with laptops, several cups of coffee, and one falafel sandwich. It could be a grad student study session, at least until a young woman named Brittany Card stands up in front of a white board covered in drawings of soldiers and tanks in Sudan. ``I'm just going to go through the sitrep from memory, so everyone's on the same page,'' Card begins, sounding more like a general in uniform than a 23-year-old in pearls and a plum-colored dress. Her situation report on the afternoon of March 27 goes on to cite massive troop movements, aerial bombardments, and a flurry of acronyms. As she talks, the group looks at satellite images of scrub desert and buildings projected on a pull-down screen at the far end of the room. Last year, South Sudan split from Sudan, and the North African countries have teetered on the verge of war ever since. A day earlier, Card continues, the fragile cease-fire seemed to snap. It appeared that Sudan Armed Forces (SAP) had bombed an oil field in South Sudan; meanwhile, southern militias from the Sudan People's liberation Army (SPLA) had apparently attacked an oil field in the north. The question was, who started the fighting--and what would happen next? Card is the data analysis coordinator for The Satellite Sentinel Project, which has been asking questions like this since late 2010, when a foundation cofounded by actor George Clooney put up the money for an audacious project to use satellites to spy on combatants in an active conflict zone. Operating out of the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative, the project's goal is to protect civilians, but to do that the team has had to learn to think like military commanders. ``Is this a SAF play or a southern play?'' asks Satellite Sentinel Project's director of operations, Nathaniel Raymond, a 34-year-old with mussed-up hair and tortoiseshell glasses. ``Whoever's play it is,'' replies Benjamin Davies, the 34- year-old fast-talking deputy director, ``we had rapid events take place'' on the border. And while they weren't watching. like everyone else, they had been focused on Sudan's Kauda Valley, where the Sudanese government has hemmed in rebels and civilians alike, blocking food shipments and conducting bombing raids that drive them into the surrounding Nuba Mountains. The team begins throwing out ideas for what could be happening. Davies theorizes the Sudan military could finally be preparing for an assault on the Kauda Valley. No, Raymond says; they would have seen more activity from all the troops in that area. ``It's like The Two Towers. You look out, and there are a lot of orcs and torches,'' he says. If you're stuck in the Nuba Mountains, he adds, ``you are saying, `Where is Gandalf right about now? Can you text him again?' '' The group is fond of movie analogies. Before the night is through, they'll reference Harry Potter, The Matrix, WarGames, and The Hunt for Red October as part of their unusual mix of war-room bravado, nonprofit earnestness, and dorm-room antics. Suddenly a thought occurs to Raymond: What if the SAF troop buildup in Kauda is a trick to draw in southern rebels? He slams the table. ``Oh man, it's obvious. You draw them in and then you hit their flanks.'' He points to an area in Sudan by the cities of Muglad and Babanusa, where tanks dropped off by train would have an uncontested route to the border. In minutes, Card finds that the nomads usually seen in the region are much farther south--that could mean they've been driven out. The team's manager of imagery analysis, Isaac Baker, 32, calls up satellite shots that show roads being built from Muglad and tanks stationed in Babanusa. The evidence is mounting. This theory would be a change from the one the Satellite Sentinel Project has been building. Just a week earlier, on March 16, Clooney and other activists led a protest in front of the Sudanese Embassy in Washington, D.C., to draw attention to the plight of the refugees in the Nuba Mountains. ``It's about to start raining, and once it starts raining there, thousands of people are going to die,'' the actor said. He then crossed a police line and was arrested, and his message was broadcast everywhere from CNN to TMZ. Now, however, the Harvard group suspects everyone was looking at the wrong spot. If their theory proves true, they will have predicted an invasion before it happened. If it's not, they will have wasted thousands of dollars in free imagery from a satellite company that has already given them millions' worth, and taken their eyes off the real conflict ``How confident do we feel about this?'' Raymond asks. They decide to go for it. Since the images won't come in until tomorrow, all they can do now is wait. It's close to 9 p.m. when the group breaks up. ``It's addictive, isn't it?'' says Jody Heck, a Harvard sophomore. ``I have to study for a 10 o'clock exam tomorrow'' Using satellites to search for war crimes in the Sudan was George Clooney's idea. He had started making trips to the country six years ago. In October 2010, just months before South Sudan voted to declare independence, he returned with the Enough Project, a Washington-based nongovernmental organization working to end genocide and other crimes against humanity. ``If entertainment is going to trump news,'' Clooney says by phone from Los Angeles, ``then entertainment should go where the news is.'' Whenever violence had occurred in Sudan in the past, the government had always been able to deny it Sitting in the desert one night with Enough's cofounder, John Prendergast, Clooney asked, ``Why is it that you can Google Earth my house, but you can't do the same thing to war criminals?'' There had to be away, he continued, they could turn satellites into the humanitarian equivalent of paparazzi. They could certainly try, figured Jonathan Hutson, Enough's communications director. He had previously worked with Nathaniel Raymond at Physicians for Human Rights in Cambridge, where they had used them to investigate mass graves in Afghanistan. A few nights after Clooney's trip, Hutson found himself in the actor's suite at D.C.'s Willard InterContinental, eating pizza and setting up a conference call with Google and the United Nations. Their goal, Hutson says, was to figure out a way to ``stop a war before it starts:'' It took less than three months for the Enough team to launch the Satellite Sentinel Project, with $750,000 in seed money from Not on Our Watch, the humanitarian foundation Clooney started with actors Don Cheadle, Brad Pitt, Matt Damon and others. Hutson got Raymond to direct the operations of the project, and Raymond got Harvard to host it. Finally commercial satellite company DigitalGlobe agreed to donate images--which can cost thousands of dollars apiece--and helped train Isaac Baker and student interns to analyze the footage. With four staff members and a half-dozen interns, the new team quickly learned to search for clues of impending attacks. Nine after launching the project, they detected SAF troops gathering within 40 miles of the Sudanese village of Kurmuk. After the Satellite Sentinel Project issued a report about it over the Internet, more than 1,500 villagers fled across the border to Ethiopia. By the time the invasion took place, there were few people left to kill. ``We saw that coming and went all Paul Revere up in that,'' Raymond says. The project's ability to warn civilians of impending violence ``is unique in my experience,'' says Stephen Wood, an ex-CIA analyst who is vice president of DigitalGlobe's Analysis Center. Just as important, though, is how they document past abuses. ``We've watched villages being absolutely destroyed, and being able to help explain how dire that is has been very significant.'' Last summer, for instance, the Satellite Sentinel Project alleged Sudan was killing civilians and burying them in mass graves in the town of Kadugli. Yet in a Washington Post article, the United States' special envoy to Sudan said US intelligence reports showed no evidence such graves actually existed. The team kept looking. ``We had multiple people speaking to us saying bodies were being buried near a [particular] water tower,'' recalls Benjamin Davies. One day, Ben Wang, an 18- year-old intern from Tufts, was looking at satellite images when he noticed the tower had moved. He pointed to a hole in the ground where it had been. ``The grave is there,'' he said. Over the next month, the team watched the tower move back to its original place, covering up the grave. In August, they released a report and, by year's end, Time magazine reported that the International Criminal Court was investigating war crimes based largely on information gathered by the group. As Satellite Sentinel Project reports were increasingly being cited by Congress members and UN officials, the team began to realize something new was happening. Rather than remaining passive observers, they were affecting the actions of the combatants. The Sudan Armed Forces started hiding their tanks inside tarps and bunkers, camouflaging them not from the enemy on the ground but from a satellite 300 miles above it. Major offensives began starting on American holidays--Thanksgiving, Presidents' Day weekend--as if the fighters hoped the people watching in Cambridge would be away from their computers. Then this past January, days after the project issued a report mentioning road construction, 29 Chinese workers helping build the road for the SAF--innocents in the conflict--were kidnapped by Sudanese rebels. They weren't released for 11 days. ``It was the sum of all fears,'' Raymond says. ``It's what we work every day to avoid.'' Raymond and the others at Harvard may toil on laptops half a world away from any violence, but their work isn't virtual. Every member of the team has had ``Sudan dreams,'' as they call their nightmares of shooting and being shot. ``There is an immense intimacy to the violence; Raymond says. ``We are not sifting through reports to create a static archive of events. We are actually affecting the ways in which perpetrators make decisions.'' It's a heady responsibility for a team whose eldest member is 34. But while members hasten to add that Harvard professors and DigitalGlobe analysts are advising their moves, there is something about the digital generation of activists that uniquely suits them to the task. ``We could not reproduce this with people who have been trained in other [nongovernmental organizations],'' says Davies. The qualities said to characterize Generation Y--the ability to multi-task on multiple technologies, a facility for social networking and teamwork, and even the individual sense of entitlement over deference to hierarchy--all help this group analyze data and make decisions quickly. ``People overvalue expertise,'' says Raymond, perhaps the first time those words have been spoken at Harvard. ``Critical thinking and the ability to learn complex systems is more important than some one walking in with six PhDs.'' The amateur satellite sleuths were put to the test in March when Clooney was set to meet with President Obama and testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. On a recent trip to the Nuba Mountains, he'd witnessed a rocket attack and interviewed children who had lost limbs from bombings-- but his testimony would not be proof. And while the Satellite Sentinel Project had satellite images from the time showing smoke from alleged bombings, they couldn't find the ``shooter''--artillery or aircraft--that caused it ``We are presenting a report with the biggest movie star in the world meeting with the president of the United States,'' recalls Raymond. ``You want to find the shooter.'' Baker kept at it. After days of triangulating from nearby airstrips and squinting at his computer screen, he finally noticed a speck he hadn't seen before--it was an Antonov AN 26, a Soviet-era cargo plane Sudan uses as a makeshift bomber. ``This was literally the smoking gun,'' says Davies. Two days later, Clooney showed the satellite image to the Senate committee, with the Antonov outlined in blue. He credited the Harvard team with the evidence. ``Their level of expertise is incredible, but more than that is their level of commitment,'' Clooney says now. ``Sometimes they are up all night trying to figure this stuff out, for no other reason than they are trying to save lives. And they don't get enough acknowledgment for that.'' It looks as if the project staff has been up all night. It's March 29, two days after they'd decided to search for the flanking attack, and they're again gathered around their conference table. Eyes are bleary, and the group is quiet. They've got the satellite images they asked for, but not the proof of an imminent invasion. ``We wanted a softball,'' Davies says. ``Sometimes you don't get that.'' Baker, as he tends to do, is still searching his laptop screen for overlooked clues. Davies starts projecting Beyonce videos from YouTube on the screen. ``We see a lot of dead bodies in here,'' he says. ``Beyonce is dead-body kryptonite.'' After more than an hour, Bakes finds some new checkpoints and signs of tank movements, but still no smoking gun. Raymond prepares to call it a night. In the days to come, Baker will find two tanks that could signal an invasion. By late April, news reports would indicate the region edging ever closer to wax. After South Sudan seized the oil-rich Sudanese town of Heglig, Sudan bombed a bridge in South Sudan, killing several civilians. Despite pleas from the United Nations and African Union, the violence would continue. The team may have been incorrect about the location of attacks, but they had accurately predicted SAF was mobilizing for a fight. That realization is still weeks away, though, and tonight the mood is somber. ``Should we move [the satellite's focus] south or stay tight on the border?'' Raymond muses aloud. The question is a fraught one. After providing some $16 million in pro bono imagery and analysis, DigitalGlobe has been negotiating new pay rates going forward. While Clooney has helped raise an additional million dollars for the project over the past year, much of that money has already been spent. That means even as violence escalates in Africa; the future of the Satellite Sentinel Project is in doubt. ``I am doing the best I can to raise money through speaking engagements,'' Clooney says. ``I believe we are going to be able to keep this up. The question is can we find ways to sustain it.'' For now, though, it's time for the team to regroup. ``This is not a bad day; this is a good day,'' says Raymond, rallying the troops with a kind of battlefield speech. Redirecting the satellite ``was the right thing to do,' he says. ``We needed to make sure we were seeing the whole picture.''