Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in congratulating Stephen Williams of Franklin, MA on his 38 distinguished years as a member of the Franklin Police Department, culminating in his recent retirement after 8 years as Chief. Mr. Williams has been tied to Franklin since birth. He grew up in Franklin, attended Franklin High School, and got an associate's degree at Franklin's Dean College before later earning bachelor's and master's degrees at Westfield State College. After playing college football for Boston University, Mr. Williams served in the Army as a member of the military police in the Vietnam War, putting him on a lifelong course as an advocate of public service and safety. In his 38 years working for Franklin, 8 as chief, Mr. Williams was an invaluable, highly respected community leader, not only in public safety matters, but in the school system, and in the veterans' community. He was an early proponent of E911 in Massachusetts, as well as an instrumental leader for the regional South Suburban Police Institute. Mr. Speaker, I rise to thank Mr. Williams for his lifelong contributions to his community. His commitment to public safety, and his passion for Franklin is truly remarkable. I ask the House of Representatives to join me in celebrating the lifetime work of Chief Williams upon his retirement.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, today's New York Times headline: ``Intractable Afghan Graft Hampering U.S. Strategy''; the subtitle: Elite group is known for corruption, but high level trials have been absent. Mr. Speaker, another story about corruption, another story about Afghan President Karzai's complicity in corruption. This story appears while American servicemen and -women continue to die in Afghanistan, while the American people continue to send billions of dollars each day to Afghanistan to sustain the Afghan Government. Mr. Speaker, I've had it; the American people have had it. This war is not worth another American life. It is not worth another taxpayer dollar. I urge the President to bring our troops home now. I urge the President to end this war now. Enough is enough. [From the New York Times, Mar. 7, 2012] Intractable Afghan Graft Hampering U.S. Strategy (By Matthew Rosenberg and Graham Bowley) Kabul, Afghanistan.--For the past few months, possibly the most intriguing poker game in Kabul has been taking place in the sprawling pink sitting room of the man at the center of one of the most public corruption scandals in the world, the near collapse of Kabul Bank. The players include people tied to President Hamid Karzai's inner circle, many of whom have profited from the crony capitalism that has come to define Afghanistan's economic order, and nearly brought down Kabul Bank. The game's stakes ``aren't too big--a few thousand dollars up or down,'' one of the participants said. Betting thousands of dollars a night in a country where most families live off a few hundred dollars a year would seem like a bad play for Sherkhan Farnood, the founder and former chairman of Kabul Bank, the country's biggest. His assets are supposed to be frozen, and he is still facing the threat of prosecution over a scandal that could end up costing the Afghan government--and, by extension, the Western countries that pay most of its expenses--almost $900 million, a sum that nearly equals the government's total annual revenues. But Mr. Farnood, who in 2008 won about $143,000 at a World Series of Poker event in Europe, appears to know a good wager when he sees one. Despite years of urging and oversight by American advisers, Mr. Karzai's government has yet to prosecute a high-level corruption case. And now many American officials say that they have little expectation that Mr. Farnood's case will prove to be the exception--or that Washington will try to do much about it, especially after violent anti-American protests in recent weeks have sowed fresh doubts in the Obama administration over the viability of the mission in Afghanistan. As Americans pull back from Afghanistan, Mr. Farnood's case exemplifies how the United States is leaving behind a problem it underwrote over the past decade with tens of billions of dollars of aid and logistical support: a narrow business and political elite defined by its corruption, and despised by most Afghans for it. The Americans and Afghans blame each other for the problem's seeming intractability, contributing to the deterioration in relations that now threatens to scuttle talks on the shape of ties between the countries after the NATO combat mission ends in 2014. What is clear is that the pervasive graft has badly undercut the American war strategy, which hinged on building the Karzai administration into a credible alternative to the Taliban. Still, the Obama administration has concluded that pressing the fight against corruption, as many American officials tried to do in recent years, could further alienate Mr. Karzai and others around him whom Washington is relying on as it tries to manage a graceful drawdown. ``It's a little late in the game to worry about anticorruption measures because what in the world is the alternative going to be?'' said Anthony H. Cordesman, a military analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. ``If you find people who aren't corrupt, it is largely because they haven't had the opportunity.'' Some of the corruption will fade organically, as America and its allies cut back on their aid to Afghanistan, which is likely to have a harsh impact on the Afghan economy, Mr. Cordesman said. Efforts by the American-led coalition to better monitor the billions it spends each year in Afghanistan continue and are having an effect, although it remains slight largely because billions of dollars keep pouring in and are likely to do so for years to come. The limits of the coalition's efforts to police its own spending--and the newfound reluctance of top American officials to push back against Afghan intransigence over prosecuting corruption--were laid bare in December when Mr. Karzai's office demanded that the coalition provide evidence if it wanted the government to prosecute the Afghan Army's former surgeon general, Gen. Ahmad Zia Yaftali. Coalition officials had in fact provided the evidence a full year earlier. General Yaftali was suspended in December 2010 after Gen. David H. Petraeus, then the coalition commander, told Mr. Karzai that NATO investigators had found that the Afghan officer had stolen tens of millions of dollars' worth of drugs from the country's main military hospital, an institution he ran and where Afghan soldiers regularly died from simple infections because they could not afford to bribe nurses or doctors to treat them. The running of the hospital, like much of the Afghan Army, is financed by the United States, which last year spent $11.2 billion to pay, train and equip Afghanistan's security force. But after the suspension of the politically connected general, the investigation into his conduct remained in limbo--until Mr. Karzai on Dec. 29 unexpectedly demanded to see the evidence he had already seen. The American officer in charge of the inquiry, Brig. Gen. H. R. McMaster, was furious. The investigation of General Yaftali and the Dawood Military Hospital was one of the major initiatives undertaken by General McMaster's task force, a high-profile coalition effort set up in 2010 to go after corruption that was being financed by coalition spending. Now it appeared as if an officer who was accused of letting his own soldiers die so he could enrich himself would never be tried. General McMaster and his staff quickly pulled together their evidence and wrote a statement to counter Mr. Karzai's demand. Their draft, a copy of which was obtained by The New York 7imes, struck both accusatory and conciliatory notes. It bluntly stated that the coalition had provided the evidence Mr. Karzai was now demanding. It said efforts to investigate had been met with ``interference, obstruction, and delay.'' It quoted a pledge Mr. Karzai had made in December at an international conference in Germany to end a ``culture of impunity.'' The statement was never released. According to two NATO officials, the commander of coalition forces, Gen. John R. Allen, decided there was little to gain in picking a fight with Mr. Karzai over the matter. A senior coalition officer who is involved with the case said he believed that it would eventually proceed. NATO is focused on preparing Afghan forces to take over the fight against the Taliban, and will continue to try to clamp down on corruption that undermines that goal, the officer said. The American officials tracking the bank investigation seem similarly uninterested in challenging Afghan authorities over the status of Mr. Farnood and his former partner, Khalilullah Frozi. Under pressure from the United States and its allies, Afghan authorities arrested both men in June. Kabul Bank was taken over nearly 10 months earlier amid accusations that its owners used it as their personal piggy bank. Mr. Farnood spent more than $150 million of the bank's money on villas in Dubai purchased in his own name. Kabul Bank money helped finance shell companies whose main function was to win subcontracts from businesses doing work for the American-led coalition, siphon a slice of the money and then find other subcontractors to do the actual work, American officials have said. Mahmoud Karzai, a brother of the Afghan president, and Abdul Haseen Fahim, a brother of the first vice president, Gen. Muhammad Qasim Fahim, both received interest-free loans so they could buy stakes in the bank. News of the takeover prompted a run on the bank that almost led to its collapse. Afghanistan's central bank spent nearly $900 million to keep it afloat, an outlay that the Afghan government, already short of cash, has since had to cover. While some of that money is likely to be recovered, some Western officials concede that donor funds will eventually be needed to close the hole in the Afghan budget, even if Western dollars do not go directly to cover Kabul Bank's losses. Deputy Attorney General Rahmat-ullah Nazari said the authorities this past fall gave permission to let Mr. Farnood and Mr. Frozi out of prison during the daytime so they could help recover assets owed to the bank. Mr. Farnood owes the bank $467 million, he said; Mr. Frozi owes $78 million. Mr. Frozi has been helpful in tracking down missing assets; Mr. Farnood less so, Mr. Nazari said, although some Western officials disputed that characterization and said it was Mr. Farnood who was being more helpful. But it is unclear how hard the Afghan government is pushing either man. The villas and a pair of partly constructed office towers in Dubai are still in Mr. Farnood's name, and Mr. Nazari said the transfer of the property was being held up by a 2 percent tax that the United Arab Emirates levy on such deals. Some Western officials questioned why a routine tax would hold up such an important transaction. Meanwhile, Mr. Farnood is collecting rent from tenants in some of the villas, Mr. Nazari said. But, Mr. Nazari insisted, both will be prosecuted once the asset recovery has been completed. American, European and even some Afghan officials say they doubt that will happen. Despite Mr. Nazari's claim that both spend their nights in prison, the two have rented separate houses in Kabul and rarely, if ever, return to their cells, said people close to the men. Mr. Farnood's spacious house stands behind high walls in Kabul's most expensive neighborhood, around the corner from the office of the International Monetary Fund, which is overseeing a forensic audit of Kabul Bank. A pool table, a table for table tennis, a large Samsung flat-screen television and a set of purple faux-leather couches and arm chairs grace the cavernous pink sitting room. A pair of late-model black Toyota Land Cruisers sit in the driveway. The officer from Afghanistan's National Directorate of Security, the country's intelligence agency, who mans the front door functions more like a doorman than a guard. Mr. Farnood lunches regularly at the Kabul Serena Hotel, where the buffet costs about $25 a head. Mr. Frozi has his own spot, Boccaccio, an upscale Italian eatery popular with well-heeled Afghans and foreigners, including American and European diplomats. Lunching there on afternoon last month with four other men, Mr. Frozi declined to talk to a reporter. He said the American press had ``destroyed the bank,'' and he dismissed his questioner with a wave of his hand.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, just yesterday the former top U.N. humanitarian official in Sudan, Mukesh Kapila, issued a warning to the world. He said that the Government of Sudan's military is carrying out crimes against humanity in the country's southern Nuba Mountains in the Sudanese state of South Kordofan. He said that these acts remind him of Darfur. Kapila said he saw military planes striking villagers, the destruction of food stocks, and literally a scorched-earth policy. He said the attacks reminded him of what he witnessed in Sudan's Darfur region in 2003 and 2004 when the predominantly Arab government in Khartoum targeted black tribes. Kapila served as the U.N.'s top humanitarian official in Sudan at the time. He said that the world must act now to prevent another Darfur-type situation in the Nuba Mountains. The people of South Kordofan and Blue Nile, two states inside Sudan along its southern border, are facing a hunger crisis. They haven't been able to plant because the government of President Bashir is bombing them in their fields. Sudan has refused to let humanitarian aid into the region. The United States, the United Nations, and other governments have condemned these attacks against civilians. My good friend and colleague, Congressman Frank Wolf, traveled to this border region at the end of February. He interviewed refugees, recorded their stories of terror: bombing from the sky and soldiers burning villages and shooting defenseless civilians; mothers fleeing for their lives with their children, abandoning their homes. I urge my colleagues to go to the Web site of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission and watch the video he has posted there. That's at www.tlhrc.house.gov. We need to speak out, Mr. Speaker. We need to let our government and the world know that people care and that we demand protection for these people from Khartoum's murderous policies. This is why I and my colleagues, Congressmen Frank Wolf and Mike Capuano, are introducing today the Sudan Peace, Security and Accountability Act. This bill calls for a comprehensive approach towards Sudan to address and end the massive human rights violations that are taking place across that country. No longer should we allow President Bashir to blackmail the international community by threatening humanitarian workers in Darfur if the world tries to reach the desperate people in the Nuba Mountains with food and relief supplies. We need a comprehensive strategy and comprehensive sanctions against Khartoum if the violations continue. We need to let other countries know that if they welcome and provide comfort to President Bashir and members of his government who have been indicted for crimes against humanity, including genocide, that they, too, will face sanctions. We need to provide the Obama administration with all the tools and all the authority it needs to seek a comprehensive peace in Sudan, end human rights violations, and bring those guilty of crimes against humanity to justice. For decades the powers that be in Khartoum have toyed with the international community, while its own people paid the price over and over again. It has to stop, Mr. Speaker. It simply has to stop. Let me end, Mr. Speaker, with a few other remarks. No one can come to the House floor today and speak about Sudan and protecting the people of Sudan from their murderous government without paying tribute to our dear colleague, Donald Payne. Congressman Payne passed away yesterday from cancer. He would have been an original cosponsor of the bill I'm introducing today. No one fought harder for human rights in Sudan. He was among the very first to call attention to the genocide taking place in Darfur. He traveled there, often alone, with just one or two aides, to talk to refugees inside Darfur and in camps along the border and to stand witness to their suffering. He was tireless in his commitment to the people of Africa and their well-being. We all looked to him for leadership, for advice, and for help. He extended this same commitment to the people of African descent in our own hemisphere. I personally know how much he did to promote the rights of Afro-Colombians and to protect their leaders and communities. We will miss him and we will miss his leadership. Mr. Speaker, he believed that human rights ought to matter. And he believed, as we all should believe, that if the United States of America stands for anything, it ought to stand out loud and foursquare for human rights.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, demagoguing the hungry, unfortunately, has become a regular occurrence during this Republican presidential primary season. The truth is that the majority of the hungry struggle to put food on their table not because they are lazy but because of circumstances outside of their control. Many are unemployed at no fault of their own. Others simply don't earn enough and need help supplementing their monthly budget. But all of the hungry, all of those who are relying on America's anti-hunger safety net programs, deserve the helping hand they are receiving. And none of these 50 million food insecure people deserve to be demagogued simply because they have trouble putting food on their kitchen tables. Last week, I met with Andrew Morehouse, the executive director of the Food Bank of Western Massachusetts. Mr. Morehouse shared with me an op- ed he wrote for the Daily Hampshire Gazette titled ``Stop demagoguing our food safety net.'' Mr. Morehouse makes a clear, coherent and smart argument that attacking the hungry is wrong for both moral and economic reasons. I respectfully urge my colleagues to read this important op- ed. I submit this op-ed into the Record. [From the GazetteNET, Feb. 7, 2012] Andrew Morehouse: Stop Demagoguing Our Food Safety Net Hatfield,--Former Northampton Mayor Clare Higgins made some eloquent points about hunger and food stamps in her recent column, ``Beyond food stamp buzzwords'' (Jan. 28). I, too, feel compelled to set the record straight so that the general public has a more complete picture of this critical issue at this juncture in our nation's history. Attacks on SNAP (the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as food stamps) are rampant in some corners of the public discourse these days. Republican presidential candidates have blamed entitlement programs such as SNAP--and those Americans who receive benefits from them--for the country's deficit problem. Newt Gingrich has even claimed that ``more people are on food stamps today because of Obama's policies than ever in history.'' It's true that the number of food stamp recipients has risen over the past few years, but the unemployment rate has also increased 110 percent since 2006. As millions of Americans find themselves out of work, those same Americans seek assistance from programs like SNAP to help meet their basic needs. The Census Bureau estimates that food stamps helped to keep 3.9 million people above the poverty line in 2010. Equally misleading is Gingrich's characterization of SNAP as a race issue, with comments like, ``I'm prepared, if the NAACP invites me, I'll go to their convention and talk about why the African-American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps.'' This statement reinforces a false perception that people of color are the primary recipients of SNAP benefits. The truth is that 49 percent of SNAP recipients are white, while blacks comprise 26 percent and Latinos 20 percent of recipients. SNAP received more biased criticism in a recent Wall Street Journal opinion piece by Warren Kozak (Jan. 30), which declared hunger in America a myth. Kozak claims that federal government programs like SNAP waste billions of dollars providing food to people that are not really in need of help. Tell that to the 110,000 people in western Massachusetts alone--primarily children, elders, or the disabled--who wouldn't have a meal tonight without their SNAP benefits or food assistance from our region's emergency food network. What Gingrich and Kozak don't seem to understand is that SNAP is not only a lifeline for millions of households facing hunger, it is also an economic stimulus. SNAP allows families to put food on their table, and provides food dollars that are spent locally. According to the Massachusetts Department of Transitional Assistance, SNAP generates approximately $406 million annually in total economic activity in western Massachusetts. SNAP doesn't cause recessions, it responds to them until the economy turns around by supporting vulnerable households while injecting much-needed revenue for local food businesses that employ thousands of residents in our communities. The fact is that hunger is a very real problem in our country--and right here in Western Massachusetts. At least one in every eight residents of western Massachusetts relies on emergency food to avert hunger. More than 45,000 people seek food assistance each month in our region, a 25 percent increase compared just three years ago. Here at the Food Bank, we believe that no one should have to go hungry. Without jobs that provide the necessary income to support households, SNAP and other government nutrition programs are essential to solving the hunger crisis facing our country. Without these programs, thousands more households in our region would find their cupboards empty on a regular basis.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, once again, the world is standing by, silent and passive, while the Government of Sudan wages war on its own people. We have been here before when hundreds of thousands of people perished in Darfur before the international community finally woke up and took action to try to protect innocent civilians from their own government's brutality. The humanitarian crisis continues in Darfur. There is no peace, and villagers, refugees, and humanitarian personnel still live and work under the constant peril of attack. President Bashir has expelled many humanitarian workers from Darfur--and even today, threatens to shut down their lifesaving operations. Last May, we witnessed the ruthless ethnic cleansing of Abyei by the Sudanese people. More than 100,000 people of the Dinka indigenous population were forcibly displaced. They fled to South Sudan, seeking safe haven, where they remain today in very, very poor conditions. When Sudanese President Bashir saw that the world was indifferent to this brutal assault, he began military operations in June against insurgents in South Kordofan and, more generally, against the Nuba people. And still the world stood silent. So, in September, Khartoum launched attacks on another border region. This time, the state of Blue Nile was under siege with attacks by the Sudanese Army and the bombings of civilians. Thousands fled to the neighboring countries of Ethiopia and South Sudan for safety, joining the desperate refugees from South Kordofan. So Sudan has undertaken a bloodbath against its own people in the states of South Kordofan and Blue Nile--house-to-house arrests and killings, rape, the merciless bombings of civilians. For nearly 8 months, Khartoum has blocked all humanitarian aid to South Kordofan and Blue Nile. It has not only continued to bomb in those states, but it has crossed the border and has bombed refugee camps and towns inside South Sudan, where tens of thousands had hoped to find food and shelter. Here are some photos of some people in refugee camps in South Sudan: Saleh Kora is from the Angolo tribe in South Kordofan. The government dropped bombs on her fields when she was trying to plant. Then the government dropped six bombs on her village. This poor woman here grabbed her children and hid in a nearby ditch. After the bombings stopped, Sudanese soldiers moved into the village and burned several homes. When they began shooting people, Saleh ran and hid with her children. The soldiers didn't care if you were an unarmed civilian, a woman or a child. She fled with her children across the border in January to the Yida refugee camp in South Sudan. This woman over here to my far right and her little girl are from the Nuba Mountains. She is married to a man who fled the nightmare of Darfur in 2005. Both were suffering from malnutrition when they arrived at the refugee camps. The people of South Kordofan and Blue Nile are being subjected to bombings, murder, rape, scorched earth, and starvation. This should come as no surprise when Ahmed Haroun, the Sudanese official wanted by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity in Darfur, is now the governor of South Kordofan. Mr. Speaker, we are fast approaching the month of March, the point at which the Famine Early Warning Systems Network, or FEWS NET, has predicted that South Kordofan and Blue Nile will reach emergency levels of food insecurity. This is just one level short of all-out famine. Yet Khartoum still denies food and medical relief to the suffering people of these regions. Last week, the United Nations Security Council called on the Sudanese Government and the armed rebels to allow unhindered access for humanitarian aid and for both sides to return to talks and to cease hostilities. President Bashir said ``no.'' The United States and the international community, including China, Russia, and others, must increase the pressure on Sudan to allow the delivery of aid to the suffering people of South Kordofan and the Blue Nile, and to reach agreement on a cease- fire. The safety and security of the Sudanese people, whether in Darfur, Abyei, South Kordofan, Blue Nile, or elsewhere, must be our first priority. Mr. Speaker, we have been silent for too long. [From the New York Times, Feb. 15, 2012] In Sudan, Seeing Echoes of Darfur (By Nicholas D. Kristof) Yida, South Sudan.--A great humanitarian catastrophe and vicious ethnic cleansing is unfolding here in the remote and impoverished region where Sudan and South Sudan come together. For some in the Nuba Mountains, living in thatch huts far from electricity or paved roads, the sharpest acquaintance they are making with 21st-century technology is to be bombed by Sudanese aircraft. Bombings, ground attacks and sexual violence--part of Sudan's scorched earth counterinsurgency strategy--have driven hundreds of thousands of people from their homes in South Kordofan, the Sudanese state where the Nuba Mountains are located. In some ways, the brutality here feels like an echo of what Sudan did in Darfur, only now it is Nubans who are targets. ``They said that they want to finish off the black people; they said they want to kill them all,'' recalled Elizabeth Kafi, a 22-year-old Nuban who said she was kidnapped in December by Sudanese uniformed soldiers. She and others say that the mostly Arab Sudanese soldiers scorn Nubans partly for their darker skin, partly because some are Christian, but mostly because many Nubans back an armed uprising against decades of Sudanese misrule. In 23 days of captivity, she said she saw the soldiers use guns to execute several Nuban men, including her grandfather and brother-in-law. She described watching soldiers gang rape and then cut the throat of a young Nuban woman, and also stab to death the woman's 3- year-old son. Kafi said that she also saw 20 to 25 soldiers hold down two Nuban girls, who she guessed to be about 14 or 15 years old, and gang rape them. The girls died from the rapes and beatings, she said. It's impossible to confirm Kafi's full story, but others verified that she had been kidnapped. And many other Nubans recount similar attacks, or describe similar racial epithets. As in Darfur, the Sudanese soldiers often call their darker- skinned victims their ``slaves.'' Ahmed Haroun, a Sudanese official wanted by the International Criminal Court for committing crimes against humanity in Darfur, is now the governor of South Kordofan, and he seems to be employing similar tactics here. While the Sudanese government is trying to suppress an armed rebellion in the Nuba Mountains, it is civilians who bear the brunt of the suffering. In an apparent effort to starve the rebels, Sudan is blocking aid groups and food assistance from reaching the area, and the United Nations Security Council a few days ago expressed ``deep and growing alarm'' at rising hunger levels there. Some 28,000 Nubans have sneaked out and settled in a new refugee camp here in Yida, South Sudan, just south of the border with Sudan. Scores more straggle in most days, many half-starved. ``I came because I was starving,'' said Muhasin Kuwa, a 24- year-old woman who just arrived at the refugee camp. Both her parents had starved to death, along with seven small children in her small village, she said. The Sudanese military has tried to block access routes, making escape perilous. I spoke to members from a group of 16 who had crowded into a car, paying $45 each for what they hoped would be a flight to safety in the refugee camp. But then, the day before I interviewed them, they came to a checkpoint manned by Sudanese soldiers. ``They called us over,'' said the vehicle's owner, Haroun Suleiman, 42. ``Then they shot at us with guns.'' Two male passengers, ages 41 and 25, were shot dead, he said. Two women, one with a month-old baby, are still missing. The others ran frantically into the bush and escaped, eventually making their way to the refugee camp. The Sudanese government bombed this refugee camp in November, and, just a week ago, it bombed the nearby town of Jau, in South Sudan. Fears are growing of a new all-out war between Sudan and South Sudan, in part because of an oil dispute. South Sudan separated from the rest of the country just in July, and the two sides can't agree on the oil pipeline fees that the South should pay. The South then shut off oil production, so both countries are now facing an economic crisis. Some experts warn that the North may try to seize oil wells from the South. Nuban children are already growing up in war. When kids surrounded me in the refugee camp, I asked them how many had lost a brother or sister in the war. About one-third raised their hands. When the food runs out in the Nuba Mountains, perhaps in two or three months, there will be a risk of mass starvation. I saw one 4-year-old girl at a feeding center run by Samaritan's Purse, the aid group, who weighed only 22 pounds. Unless outside countries enforce humanitarian access into the Nuba Mountains, we can expect more famished children like her. The Sudanese armed forces try to keep aid workers and journalists out, so the story of suffering has not received much international attention. I'm going to try to slip into the Nuba Mountains and report back. Stay tuned.

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me respond, Madam Speaker, by reminding my colleagues that when President Obama became President of the United States, he inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression. My colleagues don't like to hear that, but that's just the facts. This has been a very difficult time not only for the U.S. economy but for the global economy. The President has been trying with little or no help from this House to get this economy back on the right track. The good news is that in spite of all the obstructionism here in the House of Representatives by my Republican colleagues, the economy is slowly but surely getting better little by little. We could help that if we actually talked about jobs and actually voted on bills that were about investing in people and creating jobs, putting people back to work. We could accelerate this recovery, but the obstructionism continues. I should point out, Madam Speaker, that those of us on the Democratic side have nothing against rich people, millionaires or billionaires. It's fabulous that in this country people can accrue enormous wealth. Where we have problems is when Warren Buffett's secretary pays a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett. There's something fundamentally wrong with our tax system that puts all the burden on middle class families and basically provides a whole bunch of loopholes so that a lot of the wealthiest people and a lot of the wealthiest corporations in this country can escape paying taxes. I think what people want is fairness. It's not about soaking the rich; it's about fairness. I'm going to tell you this tax system that we have right now isn't fair to middle class families at all. I would also say to my colleague, we talk about our deficits and we talk about our debt--don't exclude these wars that we're fighting. We borrow $10 billion a month for Afghanistan alone. We borrow; we don't ask anyone to pay for it. It goes on our credit card. How is that being responsible? How is that doing the right thing? I want these wars ended. I think the war in Iraq was a mistake, and I want us to get out of Afghanistan as soon as humanly possible. But whether you're for or against these wars, you ought to pay for them. If you don't, it goes onto our credit card. We pay $10 billion a month for Afghanistan alone. Madam Speaker, I would also just say that one of the ways to get out of this deficit and out of this debt we have right now is to grow the economy, to put people back to work. The more people working, they pay taxes, and we can put it toward lowering our debt. What I fear and what has bothered me about my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is they have used the deficit as an excuse to go after programs like Medicare and Social Security and Medicaid, programs that provide a circle of protection for people in our country, our senior citizens who are the most vulnerable. Rather than going down that way, and rather than debating the bill that we're debating today, I wish we were debating the President's jobs bill. I wish we were debating something that we could send over to the Senate that would help put people back to work, that would help this economy grow faster. That's not what we're doing. We're doing the same old same old, which is not much of anything. This is a place, unfortunately, where trivial issues get debated passionately and important ones not at all. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina, my good friend, Dr. Foxx, 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. Madam Speaker, here we go again. Another day in the House of Representatives and another day without a jobs bill. It's almost March, and my Republican colleagues who control this House still have not put a meaningful jobs bill on the floor. In fact, their best chance of passing a jobs bill could have been the highway reauthorization bill, but they screwed that up so badly that they had to yank it off the floor before an embarrassing bipartisan defeat. So what are we doing today? Well, Madam Speaker, today, we're considering a bill targeting Department of Education regulations defining credit hours and setting minimum requirements that all higher education institutions must meet to be considered authorized by a State. We're targeting Department of Education regulations. We're not considering a jobs bill. There's no new, bipartisan highway bill. There's no bill that helps put cops, firefighters, and librarians back to work. And there's no new bill that helps train workers for the future. The economy may be inching along, recovering slowly, but it still needs some help. We need a real, comprehensive jobs package. Instead, we just get a bill to dismantle a few regulations with no attempt to make our education system better. This is no way to run the House of Representatives. Let's look at where we've been. They started off the new Congress with their health care repeal and replace, but we're still waiting on the replace part. To be clear, Republicans voted to take away health protections for seniors, they voted to take away health care protections for young people under 26, and they voted to take away health care protections for those with preexisting conditions, but they haven't proposed anything to replace those important provisions. Since then, the Republican leadership has played legislative Russian roulette with our economy by holding the debt limit discussions hostage, by holding up the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance extensions multiple times, and, most recently, by proposing the most partisan highway reauthorization bill I think in the history of this Congress. On top of that, the Republican leadership has wasted our time by debating resolutions to defund National Public Radio and Planned Parenthood. We have debated resolutions making it easier for unsafe people to carry concealed weapons across State lines. We've spent a good period of time on this House floor debating a bill to reaffirm our national motto. And soon we'll probably vote on a bill to restrict contraception, another attack on women's health by this Republican- controlled House. Madam Speaker, there are more important things we should be doing, and, yes, education should be something we debate. I'm all for bills improving our education system. In fact, I'd welcome the opportunity to act in a bipartisan way to improve our school systems across the board. What we should be talking about today is college affordability. What we should be talking about today are ways to ensure that every single American student has access to a quality education. And despite what Republican Senator Rick Santorum might think, it's not snobby to try to make sure our students have access to the best education possible. What we should be considering on the floor of the House today is legislation to extend the tax deduction for tuition and fees that families across this country rely on to help bear the incredible burden of rising tuition costs. This deduction, Madam Speaker, of up to $4,000 expired at the end of last year, and congressional action is required to extend this tax benefit past the 2011 tax year. But that is not what we are considering today on the House floor. We should also be considering legislation to prevent the looming increase in subsidized Stafford student loan rates--from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent--that will occur if Congress does not act before July 1, 2012. These need-based loans are critical for students who might otherwise be unable to attend college, and we should act now on legislation to stop the doubling of their interest rates. But, Madam Speaker, that is not what we are doing today. Republican Governors, including the head of the Republican Governors Association, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, overwhelmingly support President Obama's college education agenda. But in the House of Representatives, all we see is an effort to attack and dismantle the President's initiatives and no attempt to actually make college more accessible and more affordable. Madam Speaker, this is just another squandered opportunity by this Republican Congress. I can't say I'm surprised, but I am disappointed. It is time for us to work in a bipartisan way to focus on how to get this economy moving again and to focus on jobs. And when we focus on education, let's focus on issues that will make a real difference in the lives of our young people. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I would point out to my friend from North Carolina that the problem with the transportation bill, which had the potential to create millions of jobs in this country, was not the United States Senate. The problem with the transportation bill was the extreme right here in the House of Representatives that insisted that their leadership bring to the floor one of the most partisan, one of the most awful transportation bills we have ever, ever seen. The sad thing is that transportation bills used to be bipartisan. In fact, they've always been bipartisan, where Democrats and Republicans would come together. This bill was so partisan that even a number of Republicans couldn't support it. So they yanked it from the House floor because they were fearful of an embarrassing defeat. A good, robust surface transportation bill is a good jobs bill. We need to invest in our infrastructure in this country. We need to invest in our roads and our bridges and in mass transit. The transportation bill that the Republicans brought to the floor gutted mass transit, just gutted it. So that's not a problem with the United States Senate; it's a problem with the leadership here in the House of Representatives. My colleague talks about jobs. The President of the United States came to this Chamber and addressed the Nation on the need to create more jobs, on the need to help create a climate where more private sector jobs could happen. He submitted to us a plan. We cannot even get an up-or-down vote on the President's jobs plan. We can't even get a vote on it. So when my friends talk about jobs, you know, we have this opportunity to at least vote on a jobs bill. If you don't want to vote for jobs, that's one thing; but at least give us the opportunity to vote up or down on it. Just one other thing about the deficit and the debt. I don't know of a single economist who would disagree with the statement that this debt crisis that we're currently in began with the passage of the Bush tax cuts, which were not paid for. Then the prescription drug bill--that was a lot more expensive than my Republican colleagues advertised-- wasn't paid for. Add on to that two wars, Afghanistan and Iraq, not paid for. The last time this country didn't pay for a war was when we borrowed money from the French to fight the British. I mean, we're going to war and asking the brave young men and women who serve in our military to put their lives on the line, and we're not even willing to pay for it. So that's how we got in this mess. Add to that the greed on Wall Street which brought this economy to a halt, and here we are trying to struggle to get our economy back on its feet. But I'm going to tell you that we're not going to get this economy back on its feet unless we invest in the American people, unless we invest in education, unless we invest in our infrastructure, unless we invest in medical research, unless we invest in the innovation economy so that we can compete in the global economy in the years to come. So I don't want to hear any lectures about deficits and debt. It is not even credible for my friends on the other side to point the finger on that, given the fact that when Bill Clinton left office we had record surpluses. We know how we started in this decline, and now we need to figure out a way to dig ourselves out. So, again, I wish we were debating a transportation bill on the floor of the House today. I wish we were debating a bill to be able to address the fact that interest rates on student loans are going to increase unless we do something. We ought to make education more affordable for people. No one in this country who wants a college education ought not to get one because they can't afford it. Those are the things we should be talking about here today. Instead, they pulled the transportation bill and we're doing this today. And we'll be out of here on Thursday before noon, I'm told. The American people want us to work on their behalf. I regret the fact that this bill, however well-intentioned, to me is not the legislation we should be debating right now. This is not the urgent need. We ought to be talking about jobs; and my friends on the other side of the aisle, when it comes to jobs, have an absolutely lousy record. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing Herbert Adams of Worcester, MA. Herbert is being honored on March 13, 2012 by the Worcester City Council Chamber for his volunteer service to his community. Herbert was born in Maine, where he was adopted by an uncle after the tragic deaths of his parents. When the United States entered WWII, he repeatedly attempted to volunteer for the service, finally discovering that he was exempted from the military due to his job in the shipyards. Herbert applied just one more time--this time claiming to be unemployed. Once in the Army, Herbert again tenaciously fought his way into the line of fire. With determination and a little luck, he qualified as a paratrooper in time to take part in some of the most ferocious fighting of the war. Like many paratroopers, Mr. Adams time and time again found himself in crucial battles. From North Africa he was shipped to Italy and fought on the beaches at Anzio. After Italy he went to the Western Front and took part in Operation Market Garden, where he was temporarily reported as missing in action to his wife, Beverly. A month later he fought in the Battle of the Bulge, playing a key role in the capture of an entire German company. After the German surrender Herbert was assigned as a personal bodyguard to General Dwight D. Eisenhower. He would meet President Eisenhower once more, when he visited Worcester during his presidential campaign. Mr. Adams' military service, for which he was awarded two Bronze Stars and a Purple Heart, is deserving of recognition on its own. But he has also carried his lifetime of public service into his civilian life. Herbert has been recognized for his exemplary four decades with the scouts and works endlessly to maintain Worcester's parks and monuments. Every American can aspire to imitate his lifetime of heroism and sacrifice. Today I ask the House of Representatives to join me in honoring Mr. Herbert Adams.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I just say to the gentleman, from my understanding, there's already been a cutoff for amendments, that people can't file new amendments as we speak. Or is the gentleman telling me something different?

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, let me yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, let me just make a couple of points to remind my colleagues of a few things. One is, this bill breaks the tradition of bipartisan action to rebuild our economy, to create jobs, and strengthen our economy. This bill, the Republican bill, kills 550,000 American jobs. It kills them. It cuts highway investments in 45 States and bankrupts the highway trust fund by $78 billion. I would like to include for the Record a statement by the ranking member, Mr. Rahall, talking about CBO's estimate, prediction that this would bankrupt the highway trust fund. News From the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Rep. Nick J. Rahall, II--Ranking Member For Immediate Release: February 13, 2012. Breaking News--CBO: Republican Surface Transportation Proposal Bankrupts Highway Trust Fund--Republican Leadership's Bill Falls $78 Billion Short Over Ten-Year Period Washington, DC.--According to a new analysis released this afternoon by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Republican Leadership's surface transportation bill that the House is expected to act on later this week would bankrupt the Highway Trust Fund by 2016 and create a $78 billion funding shortfall over a ten-year period. ``The Republican Leadership's partisan signature `jobs' bill is not sustainable, and would lead America's transportation programs down a reckless path toward bankruptcy,'' said U.S. Representative Nick J. Rahall (D WV), top Democrat on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. ``There is no doubt we need to pass a long-term bill that creates certainty, but the only thing this bill does is make certain the Highway Trust Fund will go belly up even before the end of the bill.'' New projections released today by CBO show the balance of the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund will go broke by fiscal year 2016 under the Republican Leadership's controversial plan. Over a ten-year period, the bill would create a $78 billion funding shortfall in the Highway Trust Fund, adding greater uncertainty to the future integrity of surface transportation programs. ``Despite attempts by Republican Leadership to cobble together a hodgepodge of funding that included giveaways to Big Oil, cutting pensions for middle-class American workers, and a bailout from the General Fund, the bill is going to create a huge funding shortfall that will jeopardize the ability of States and local communities to move forward with construction projects down the road,'' said Rahall. ``Instead of working with Democrats in a bipartisan fashion to create jobs, Republicans are advancing a partisan proposal that will destroy 550,000 American jobs while putting the future of transportation programs in doubt.'' CBO's analysis of H.R. 7, which is also available on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Democrats' Website at: http://go.usa.gov/QET. I also want to point out to my colleagues both from Utah and Florida, under this bill, Utah would lose $159 million over 5 years in highway funding according to the Federal Highway Administration. That, according to economists, is 5,531 jobs. In Florida, there would be a cut of $880 million over 5 years compared to current law; and according to economists, that would destroy 30,637 jobs. Now granted, this thing is over 1,000 pages, so I could forgive my colleagues for not reading the fine print on the bill; but if they read the fine print and they were advocating these kinds of reductions for their States, let me just say I'm glad they're not my Congressmen. At this point, I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I'm happy to yield to the gentleman from Florida, or anybody, who can explain to me what's happening. I just got an email from the Rules Committee saying that the meeting on the transportation bill that was scheduled for 2 o'clock today to deal with hundreds of amendments that Members have offered has now been postponed subject to the call of the Chair. I'm wondering whether my friend from Florida or Utah or somebody could tell me whether they have any idea why the meeting was canceled and when it's going to be rescheduled. I'm happy to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee.)

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, this is a reasonable amendment. The American people are tired of getting gouged at the pump by these big oil companies that are making record profits and, at the same time, we continue with taxpayer subsidies to give them these handouts. Enough is enough. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, may I inquire from the gentleman how many more speakers he has left, because we have a lot. We ran out of time, so I'm the last speaker.

Mr. McGOVERN. Oh, my goodness, I don't even know where to begin. I first would like to publicly thank the Reading Clerk for his patience in slogging through the reading of this terribly complicated and confusing rule. I think the mere reading of this rule says it all, demonstrating how messed up this process is. Madam Speaker, Speaker Boehner used to be fond of criticizing bills by saying, they wouldn't pass the ``straight face'' test. Well, let me tell you, I'm having trouble keeping a straight face right now, not when I look at this incredibly partisan, slapdash set of bills before us, not when I look at the awful, convoluted process that got us here. Madam Speaker, this process is an absolute travesty. The Republican leadership took a thousand-page bill--the most partisan transportation bill in congressional history--and made it worse. They took a bill that was written in secret and jammed through the Transportation Committee and inserted unrelated and controversial provisions like Keystone pipeline, ANWR, offshore drilling, and cuts in Federal pensions. Even worse, they changed the rules in the middle of the game because yesterday morning, after everyone had submitted their amendments to the original single bill, Speaker Boehner decided to split it into three separate measures, and he said it was in the name of transparency. Transparency? Give me a break. It was more like the Valentine's Day massacre of transparency. You know a bill is bad when the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Taxpayers for Common Sense, and the Natural Resources Defense Council are all opposed to how it's structured. Talk about strange bedfellows. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, a former Republican Congressman, called H.R. 7 ``the most partisan transportation bill that I have ever seen,'' and ``the worst transportation bill I've ever seen during 35 years of public service.'' The chairman of the Transportation Committee calls this a bipartisan product. Madam Speaker, making Democratic amendments in order in and of itself and then defeating them doesn't make a bill bipartisan. Transportation bills, by their nature, have always been truly bipartisan, written together by the majority and minority. Republicans and Democrats in the past have not only worked in good faith on this bill, but they have put their differences aside and did their jobs. I should know. I served on the Transportation Committee during a Republican-controlled House in my first term, and I served as a conferee to the 1998 reauthorization bill. Yet H.R. 7 abandons years of good-faith efforts by members of both parties to thoughtfully and responsibly craft a bipartisan transportation bill that reflects the priorities and vital importance of infrastructure investments across this country. H.R. 7 slashes investments in Federal highways by $15.8 billion from current levels over the bill's duration. It does so at a time when our roads and bridges are crumbling before our eyes. This bill ignores that harsh reality. It guts transit funding by de-linking dedicated Federal funding from the highway trust fund and lumping it in with a smorgasbord of other transportation accounts that will be forced to compete for annual appropriations. What's most egregious and irresponsible about this bill--worse than the hyperpartisanship, worse than the atrocious process--is that this bill will result in 550,000 job losses. We should be focused, Madam Speaker, on creating good jobs in manufacturing and construction--two sectors hardest hit with job losses--not kicking them while they're already down. And like so many other bills, Republicans couldn't let an opportunity pass to help their friends at Big Oil. Oil companies are making more money, hand over fist, to the tune of tens of billions of dollars in record profits every year. Now we're seeing gas prices rise again. Yet Republicans continue to provide $40 billion worth of taxpayer-funded subsidies to companies that don't need them and don't deserve them. Last night in the Rules Committee, I tried to end taxpayer subsidies to Big Oil. But instead of asking ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron, Shell, and other Big Oil companies to pay their fair share while prices at the pump rise, the Republicans doubled down for their corporate friends and blocked my amendment. I offered it three different ways last night, and all three ways were rejected, not even given the courtesy of consideration on this House floor. I will offer it again today, if the Rules Committee meets, but I have no doubt the other side will continue what they usually do: stand with Big Oil and continue to block my amendment. Allowing more oil and gas drilling off our coasts and opening up the treasured Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling will do nothing to lower gas prices in the short term, let alone pay for this bill. At best, it will be years before any money would come from the new drilling areas. And let's not forget the Keystone provision that's jammed in here that would automatically deem--I used the word ``deem''--the environmentally harmful pipeline approved. Oh, and then there's the provision to force Federal employees--who are currently under a 2-year pay freeze--to nearly triple their contributions to their Federal retirement accounts. The Republican leadership has, once again, found a way to take a swipe at Federal employees, even in a surface transportation bill. This part is really confusing. The Republicans are using this attack on Federal employees to pay for the highway bill, but they are also, apparently--according to press reports--using the same revenue to pay for the payroll tax extension. Perhaps my friend from Florida--and I'm happy to yield to him--could explain to us how they expect to use the same pot of money to pay for two separate things. Well, maybe we'll get an answer later on in the debate. Madam Speaker, Democrats want a fully funded, commonsense transportation bill that puts people back to work. We want a bill that makes our roads and bridges safer, not more dangerous. We want a bill that is good for America. This is not that bill. This bill before us is nothing but red meat political propaganda at its worst. It simply makes no sense. It will not become law. We should scrap this bill and start over and do it the right way. That's the way we've always done it. We should do it in a bipartisan way, come together, and help to get a really good transportation bill that will put people back to work. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This gets more and more interesting. I share the gentleman from Ohio's concern, especially in light of the fact that the Rules Committee canceled their meeting today at 2 o'clock that was scheduled to go over all these amendments. We have no idea what's going on. My guess is the leadership on their side has no idea what's going on. This process is so convoluted and it lacks transparency. I, quite frankly, think my colleagues should be ashamed of bringing this kind of a bill under this kind of process to the floor. At this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the ranking member of the Committee on Natural Resources.

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman. Madam Speaker, at this time, I would like to insert in the Record the Statement of Administration Policy making it very clear that this bill would be vetoed. Statement of Administration Policy H.R. 7--American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act of 2012 (Rep. Mica, R Florida, and Rep. Duncan, R Tennessee, Feb. 14, 2012) The Administration strongly opposes the Rules Committee Print of H.R. 7, which includes H.R. 3408, the Protecting Investment in Oil Shale the Next Generation of Environmental, Energy, and Resource Security (PIONEERS Act) and H.R. 3813, the Securing Annuities for Federal Employees Act of 2012. H.R. 7 does not reflect the historically bipartisan nature of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. The Administration has serious concerns with provisions in the bill that would make America's roads, rails, and transit systems less safe, reduce the transportation options available to America's traveling public, short circuit local decision-making, and turn back the clock on environmental and labor protections. This bill would reduce safety throughout the Nation's transportation system by failing to make necessary investments in roads and bridges, limiting funding to State and local governments for highway safety, and repealing requirements that help ensure the safe handling of hazardous materials by railroads. The bill also fails to adequately improve transit safety in accordance with recommendations of the National Transportation Safety Board and legislation submitted by the Administration in December 2009. H.R. 7 eliminates programs that ensure the Nation's metropolitan areas have sufficient resources to provide multiple transportation options to help reduce congestion. H.R. 7 also eliminates a thirty-year legacy of dedicated transit funding from the Highway Trust Fund. The bill allocates Federal funding for transit in a manner that undermines local decision making regarding the operation of local transit systems. This bill also reduces authorized funding levels for Amtrak and loosens the requirements on loan programs, putting taxpayer dollars at risk. In addition, the bill inappropriately targets funding towards systems that carry only a small number of the Nation's bus passengers. Finally, while the Administration appreciates that the bill does not contain earmarks, H.R. 7 eliminates funding for a number of discretionary grant programs, missing an opportunity to promote competition and innovation. H.R. 7 would also significantly weaken environmental protections for transportation projects and undermine civic engagement in the decision-making process. The bill includes arbitrary timelines that deem an environmental and substantive review satisfactory regardless of a project's complexity and impact. The bill also limits judicial recourse of parties affected by transportation projects in a manner that undermines well-established judicial principles. The Administration is committed to promoting safe and responsible domestic oil and gas production as part of a broad energy strategy that will protect consumers and reduce the Nation's dependence on foreign oil. Unfortunately, the bill includes pay-fors that open up pristine natural habitats not suitable for resource extraction and undermine prudent development of the Nation's oil and natural gas resources by opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to industrial development, mandating lease sales in new offshore areas with no Secretarial discretion for determining which areas are appropriate and safe for such exploration and development, and preempting a Bureau of Land Management environmental impact statement on oil shale extraction. Further, this bill seeks to circumvent a longstanding process for determining whether cross-border pipelines are in the national interest by mandating the permitting of the Keystone XL pipeline project despite the fact that the pipeline route has yet to be identified and there is no complete assessment of its potential impacts, including impacts on health and safety, the economy, foreign policy, energy security, and the environment. The Administration is committed to working on a bipartisan basis on a surface transportation reauthorization bill that provides the necessary funding to modernize the Nation's surface transportation infrastructure, increase transportation options, maintain and create good paying jobs, and ensure lasting economic competitiveness. Because this bill jeopardizes safety, weakens environmental and labor protections, and fails to make the investments needed to strengthen the Nation's roads, bridges, rail, and transit systems, the President's senior advisors would recommend that he veto this legislation. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Webster) 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. Well, I appreciate that. Let me ask the gentleman this: yesterday, we were told--well, I'm reading right now news reports that one of the problems is that one of your offsets to the payroll tax cut, which is going after Federal workers' pensions, is the same offset that you have in the highway bill. Is that the reason why this is being postponed, because the Republican leadership can't quite figure out how they're paying for any of this stuff?