Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Clarke).

Mr. McGOVERN. One final thing, Mr. Speaker. Again, we had an amendment in the Rules Committee offered by Mr. Boswell that would help give hiring preferences to our veterans who are risking their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it was defeated. That is an outrage. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question so we can debate and pass a bill that American companies develop the next generation of high-tech fuel-efficient vehicles. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself 10 seconds. Mr. Speaker, this bill does absolutely nothing to lower gas prices, and it does everything to increase profits for the big oil companies. Again, I repeat the question that I have been asking over and over again: why was the amendment that would help our veterans get jobs on their return from Iraq and Afghanistan defeated in the Rules Committee? I have no idea why. At this point, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Peters).

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself 5 seconds. Mr. Speaker, let's be clear. This bill does nothing, nothing at all to lower fuel costs, and everything to increase the profits by big oil companies. I think it shows where the priority of the Republican Party is at this moment. At this time I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule and the underlying bills, H.R. 1229 and H.R. 1230. Mr. Speaker, these bills aren't serious solutions to bring down high gas prices. Instead, these are nothing more than a political exercise meant to keep the big oil companies happy. Big oil companies have every reason to be happy these days. Last week, ExxonMobil announced first-quarter profits of nearly $10.7 billion. Let me repeat that--$10.7 billion. That's a 69% increase over the same three month period last year. American taxpayers are paying nearly $4 dollars a gallon for gasoline and we're still giving $4 billion in subsidies to Big Oil? Give me a break. Yesterday, in the Rules Committee, I offered an amendment--as a standalone bill--that would eliminate subsidies for big oil. My amendment would have done nothing to prevent these drilling bills from moving forward. Ending subsidies for corporations that are making money hand over fist while gouging Americans shouldn't be controversial. Apparently, my Republican colleagues on the Rules Committee didn't see it the same way. My amendment wasn't made in order. Instead, here we are today debating legislation that would boost Big Oil's profits even more without doing anything to lower gas prices for American families. More drilling won't lower gas prices. It's that simple. Even with an expedited permitting approval process--that ignores any environmental impact assessment--we wouldn't see any of this additional supply in the market for years. And the notion that we've run out of areas to drill because we've exhausted all current offshore drilling sites is ludicrous. Oil companies currently have access to nearly 80 million acres to drill for oil, including 38 million acres offshore. But they produce oil on only 4 percent of those acres. Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues are so fond of saying these days that people should be able to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. I wish they would apply that same ``tough love'' to the record profit-making oil companies at a time when American families are being gouged at the pump. I oppose this Rule and the underlying bills and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on November 16, 2009--almost a year and a half ago now--Sergei Magnitsky died in a Russian detention center. While deaths in detention centers do occur all over the world, and the United States is no exception, what sets Mr. Magnitsky's case apart from many of the others are two remarkable facts. The first remarkable fact is that Mr. Magnitsky was imprisoned not because he had committed a crime, but because he reported one--he just reported it to the wrong people, the very Russian government officials who had orchestrated a massive tax fraud scheme, and continued to report them increasingly louder the more he was threatened by Russian officials to keep quiet. The second remarkable fact is that with all the necessary medical intervention, his death most likely could have been prevented--but this medical intervention was purposely withheld as punishment. These two facts make Sergei Magnistsky an emblematic victim of much larger human rights problems in the Russian Federation, the utter corruption and the complete lack of the rule of law in that country. This is what makes the Justice for Sergei Magnitsky Act not just an urgent intervention and attempt to establish accountability in an individual case, but it makes this Act a true Russian Human Rights Act. And I could not be prouder to name the act after this great man, Sergei Magnistsky. After becoming aware of a massive financial crime, Mr. Magnitsky testified before the official authorities about the largest tax fraud scheme in Russian history. He demonstrated how 230 million dollars were stolen from the Russian Treasury and he implicated a number of public officials who allegedly participated in this scheme. What would be a welcomed treasure of information to any tax fraud investigator in most countries around the world, not so in Russia, where other rules apply. Flying in the face of international legal standards and practices, it was Mr. Magnitsky who found himself arrested and charged with the crimes he helped expose. He was kept in pre-trial detention for almost one year, as the prosecutor's office appeared to have trouble finding any evidence to support their case. Even more troubling questions relate to Mr. Magnitsky's death. Why did he die, what happened to him? Was he sick? And even then, was he so terribly sick that physicians could not have saved his life? In the absence of a formal and independent investigation into his death, the exact circumstances leading to his death remain shrouded under a veil of government secrecy. What we do know is that when Mr. Magnitsky was sent to prison, he was in general good health and showed no signs of medical problems. We also know that Mr. Magnitsky--who diligently kept a record of his treatment in prison--was denied urgent medical care when he requested it from his captors, who were aware of his medical needs and deteriorating health. Many of those unanswered questions deserve an answer--Mr. Magnistky's family deserves an answer, as do the Russian people. Many of my colleagues and friends in Congress, on both sides of the aisle, and in both chambers, would like to see these questions answered. European Members of Parliament would like to see these questions answered. Russian human rights defenders would like to see these questions answered. Up until now, no serious investigation into these matters has been undertaken, and most worrisome, no one has been held accountable. Not for the fraud, not for the abuse, not for the death. Mr. Speaker, Sergei Magnitksy was a remarkable person, although he would certainly have disputed this claim. He was a husband, and a father of two children; he was a hardworking attorney; he was trying to provide for his family, a friendly and caring man, like many ordinary citizens in Russia. What was special about Sergei was that in the face of threats, he had the courage to stand up for what is right. Sergei Magnitsky was special, because he was undeterred in the face of an enormous state apparatus that only served the interests of those people whom he had implicated. Consequently, the state arrested him and detained him for almost one year without bringing any charges. The prosecutor used his imprisonment to soften him up; to make him change or retract his testimony--and when he refused, he paid the ultimate price. For his contributions to the fight against corruption in Russia, Mr. Magnitsky posthumously received the Transparency International Integrity reward 2009-2010. I quote the chair of the awards committee who said ``He [Mr. Magnitsky] believed in the rule of law and integrity, and died for his belief. Sergei, his heroic fight, and the ideals he stood for must never be forgotten.'' Mr. Speaker, all too often have the deaths of critics or whistleblowers of the Russian regime been swept under the carpet in Russia--Anna Politkovskaya and Natalia Estemirova are just two such famous examples of brave Russians who have died in search of truth. Now, Sergei Magnitsky's name will be added to this illustrious list of brave individuals. Mr. Speaker, Russia has ratified numerous international human rights treaties. These include the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention against Torture and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The Russian Federation is also a contracting party to the European Convention on Human Rights and has subjected itself to the jurisdiction of the European Court on Human Rights, where it is all too frequently a defendant. These internationally incurred obligations are binding. When Russia signed those treaties it made a public pledge--with the world as its witness--to uphold the inalienable rights enshrined in those very documents. But Russia not only signed a contract with the global community; but first and foremost, Russia signed a contract with its own people, these international commitments are a public expression of the Federation's desire to protect the individual rights of the Russian people. If we do not want these human rights treaties to become hollow documents, if we want to maintain an international legal order in which these documents have any meaning at all, we need to speak up and demand that they be observed. What is the use of these treaties, when states can choose to ignore them at will; when they get in the way; when they find them inconvenient? Are we to allow that the signing of human rights treaties becomes a purely cosmetic action? No. I do not think so. I will not stand for that. But Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. It is not only the formality of observing the treaty that matters. My primary concern is with the content of these documents, for what they represent. They say no to torture and abuse. They say no to arbitrary detention. They say no to murder, either actively or through utter medical neglect. They demand that people are protected from the abuse of the state. They promise that people are treated with dignity. We need to be candid and frank with our friends and allies. We need to be able to look each other in the eyes and tell the truth. We need to question one another, and call each other out. That is what you do when you are a member of a larger society. For when we fail to do so, we have truly lost touch; we resign to our faith and show we care no longer. Russia, as a most important member of the family of nations, can do better and should do better than that. I am not alone in this criticism. Senator Cardin has voiced his concern about Sergei's abuse and death. And most recently during a visit to Moscow on March 10, 2011, Vice President Biden also criticized Russia: `a country in which--a company which can be seized, or an owner imprisoned on a politician's whim; in which a lawyer like Sergei Magnitsky [. . .] can be arrested after accusing the police of fraud and then die in detention before being tried'. He went on to say ``We will continue to object when we think human rights are violated or democracy and the rule of law are undermined.'' I could not agree more with this statement, Mr. Speaker. And it is to reinforce this message, a message that asks Russia to stop these human rights abuses, to reform their justice system, to address their prison conditions, and to root out corruption and the abuse of power, that I have introduced legislation. I am deeply grateful to Mr. Alcee Hastings, Frank Wolf, Joseph Pitts, Sue Myrick, Steve Cohen and Chris Smith, for their strong support and input. The bill I introduced today imposes travel bans and financial sanctions on those involved in the fraud scheme and Mr. Magnitsky's abuse and death in prison. The bill further will fully restore if possible what is rightfully the property of the Russian people. By targeting the Russian Treasury, this fraud was committed against all Russian people; they are the true owners of the stolen 5.4 billion rubles.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my deep concern regarding a serious human rights crisis that is currently unfolding in Bahrain, a strategic ally of the United States in the Middle East. As Physicians for Human Rights has reported, the medical community in that country has come under attack by Bahrani authorities during the currently ongoing unrest, and doctors, nurses and emergency medical technicians have been arrested, detained, harassed and prevented from fulfilling their ethical obligations of providing medical care. In doing so, the government of Bahrain is violating well-established laws of medical neutrality. Just this Monday, April 11, at least six physicians were arrested by the government of Bahrain in its sweeping campaign against medical professionals over the past several weeks. Those arrested on that day include Dr. Abdulshaheed Fadhel, Dr. Jawad Khamees, Dr. Zahra Alsammak, Dr. Arif Rajab, Dr. Nabeel Hameed, and Dr. Nabeel Tammam. I call on the State Department to do everything in its power to facilitate the release of these individuals and to bring an end to similar attacks on the medical profession in Bahrain.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Ryan budget before the House today. I am pleased that the Rules Committee has made the submitted substitute budgets in order so that we can have a full debate on our Nation's priorities over the next several years. And in my view, the Ryan budget represents exactly the wrong priorities. It would eliminate Medicare as we know it, forcing seniors to pay thousands of dollars more every year for their health care. It would bring back the doughnut hole, allow insurance companies to once again discriminate based upon preexisting conditions, and kick young people off their parents' insurance plans. It would slash needed investments in education, infrastructure, medical research, environmental protection, and hunger programs. And it would still result in deficits as far as the eye can see. And at the same time, the Ryan budget would give a massive tax cut to the wealthiest Americans. The top rate under the Ryan budget would be the lowest since 1931, which is appropriate, Madam Speaker, because this is a budget that only Herbert Hoover could love. Apparently, the Republican leadership of this House would like to reverse the last 80 years of social progress in this country. In short, I believe this budget would represent the largest redistribution of wealth from the middle class and the poor to the wealthy in American history. Now, some have called this approach trickle-down economics on steroids. But it's worse than trickle-down, Madam Speaker; it's gusher-up. Over the last several years, working families have been struggling, struggling to find a job, struggling to pay their mortgages, to pay the utility bills and their health care bills, struggling to put food on the table and put their kids through college. To them, the Republicans would say, ``Tough luck.'' At the same time, the very wealthiest Americans and corporations have enjoyed record profits. And to them the Republicans would say, ``You need more help.'' As President Obama said so eloquently yesterday, ``That's not the America that I grew up in. That's not the America I want for my children and for my grandchildren.'' We can and we must do better. The Democratic alternative offered by Mr. Van Hollen is a sensible, practical, and, most importantly, fair way to address our long-term fiscal challenges while at the same time investing in our future. I urge my colleagues to support that alternative and to reject the Ryan budget.

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

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

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this closed rule and to the underlying bill. I want to reinforce the comments of the gentlelady from New York when she said that the issue of defunding Planned Parenthood or what your opinion is about the Affordable Care Act really has no place in this debate. It shouldn't be tied to anything. The fact of the matter is the Republicans are intentionally injecting these very kinds of polarizing issues, and let me say to all of my friends on the Democratic side, that's the reason you should vote against this rule. I'm pleased that the Republican leadership of the House decided it was not in anyone's interest to shut down the government. I am also pleased that the leadership ignored the chants of ``shut it down'' coming from the most extreme elements of their party. But I am not pleased, Madam Speaker, with this so-called compromise. This bill cuts the wrong things too deeply and ignores some of the things that could stand to be cut. The cuts target the poor and the middle class, the very people who can least afford it as we struggle to recover from the Great Recession. Meanwhile, the very wealthy and the special interests get away scot-free. Student aid programs get cut. Children's health care would be cut. Transportation funding to repair our roads and our bridges would be cut. Environmental protection would be cut. The COPS program, which helps local communities stay safe, would be cut. Investments in science and technology research would be cut. But the Department of Defense, well, they got a $5 billion increase. Oil companies keep their sweet tax loopholes. And big agriculture keeps their subsidies. That's not fair, Madam Speaker, and that's not right. I am all for a leaner government; but I'm not for a meaner government. I'm for balancing the budget; but I'm not for balancing the budget solely on the backs of the poor and the middle class. If you want to get to a balanced budget, there needs to be some fairness in this process. And if you think that this bill is troublesome, just wait because later this week we will be debating the Republican budget proposal for 2012, a budget that would represent the largest redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the rich in American history. It is a budget plan that ends Medicare as we know it. It is a budget plan that tells our seniors we want you to pay more, and you will get less. Well, there are some things worth fighting for, Madam Speaker, and the protection of Medicare is one of them. So I look forward to that fight. But in the meantime, I urge my colleagues to reject this yet again another closed rule, and I urge them to reject the underlying bill. We can do better than this.

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 3 of rule XVI, I demand the question of consideration.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, it is hard to believe, but in less than 12 hours, the government will shut down unless Congress acts. The Republican leadership should bring a clean CR to this floor free of all their controversial riders so that we can keep the government running for another few days so that the negotiators can continue their talks and get a deal. But it is outrageous that today we are not doing that. We're bringing a net neutrality bill to the floor which has nothing to do with anything, and we should be spending our time talking about instead how we should save the jobs of hundreds of thousands of people that are in the balance if this government shuts down, how we should save the social safety net, because it's gone if this government shuts down. The Republicans should stop holding this government hostage and stop using these controversial social riders as ransom. We need to keep this government going. We need to get a deal. Take this net neutrality bill off the floor today. Instead, bring a clean CR so we can all vote and keep this government running so we can get a final deal.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Reclaiming my time, I will just remind my friend, as I did last night, right now there are 30,000 people in this country that are fasting in protest of the cuts that adversely impact the poor. A former colleague, Tony Hall from Ohio, Jim Wallis from Sojourners, David Beckmann from Bread for the World are highlighting the fact that the cuts in this budget are going to be devastating to the most vulnerable people in this country. What I said in the Rules Committee last night is that sometimes we forget to understand that there are real people behind these cuts, and people are going to be hurt. And, unfortunately, the people who are sacrificing are the people who can least afford to sacrifice. You're not asking Donald Trump to sacrifice. You're not asking big oil companies to sacrifice or those big agri-businesses that receive corn ethanol subsidies. No. It's all focused on working people and poor people. I don't know when, in the minds of the Republicans, that average working people and people who are vulnerable became the bad guys. It was reckless Wall Street behavior that created this financial crisis, and they get everything, and everyday people get nothing except the bill. That's wrong. At this point, Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the words of the Speaker of the House, but I would remind my colleagues that when we talk about national security, it needs to include, as well, the health and well- being of our senior citizens here in the United States. It needs to include the health and well-being of our children here in the United States. It needs to include our infrastructure, our education, the quality of our environment. All those things are part of our national security. We all support funding our troops. What we don't support are reckless policies that are aimed at undercutting programs like Medicare and putting our senior citizens at a disadvantage where they will pay more and get less. I mean this is an ideological battle that we are, unfortunately, engaged in where my Republican friends believe that Medicare should be ended as we know it. Medicare as we know it they want to end. It is clear. If anyone doubts that, I will tell my colleagues to read the bill, to read the stuff that is coming out of the Budget Committee. Read the bill. For anybody who doubts that Republicans are targeting Medicare, look at what the Budget Committee is doing. It will be there in black and white when it's published, and it will state unequivocally that Medicare, as we know it, will be ended. Senior citizens, according to the CBO, will pay more and get less. That is not what, I think, the American people want. I will just remind my colleagues of a new poll that came out: 66 percent of seniors reject the plan to end Medicare as we know it. So, if you interpreted the results of the last election as going after Medicare and seniors' health care, I think you misread the results of the last election. The last election was about jobs. We all need to come together and talk about how we protect jobs and help encourage the creation of more jobs in this country. If you want to end the deficit, put people back to work. Here we are in April, and you have yet to bring one single bill to this floor that deals with jobs, that helps create jobs and that helps protect jobs. My friends on the other side of the aisle need to kind of reevaluate their priorities here. Let's get back to what the American people want--a strong economy and good jobs. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. I am not. I have a couple of more speakers.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks). (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina, my friend, Dr. Foxx, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this closed rule and to the misguided underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. Enough political posturing. Enough governing by press conference. Enough finger-pointing press releases, Facebook updates, and Tweets. Democrats have already agreed, reluctantly, to tens of billions of dollars in cuts. Many of these cuts are from programs that are very near and dear to us. We have come more than halfway. I am pleased that Speaker Boehner agreed to attend a negotiating session with President Obama and Senator Reid last night. The truth, Mr. Speaker, is that it shouldn't be this hard to come up with a budget to finish this year. President Obama and Senator Reid are trying to work with Speaker Boehner to come up with a bipartisan agreement that moves this country forward. But that's what we see coming from the Republican Party in the House. Unfortunately, as of right now, the Republican leadership is continuing with their ``my way or the highway'' obstructionism. Let's be clear about what's really going on here. Let's at least be straight with the American people. This impasse is not because of disputes between Democrats and Republicans; it's because of an intraparty feud between sensible, pragmatic Republican legislators and angry, take-no-prisoner Republican activists. Now, I know that many of my friends on the other side of the aisle would like to accept the billions and billions of dollars in cuts that the Democrats have offered and declare a victory. Unfortunately, their Republican Party has been hijacked by people who relish a shutdown of the Federal Government, people who refuse to take ``yes'' for an answer. They are more interested in making a point than in making law. And unless and until the Republican leadership in this House is willing to stand up to that radical element and stop moving the goalposts, we will not be able to move forward. My friends on the other side of the aisle talk a good game about wanting to come up with a compromise. Unfortunately, this bill before us today does nothing to achieve that goal. In fact, it is a step backwards. This bill, like H.R. 1 before it, isn't going anywhere. The Senate leadership and the White House have already made it very clear that yet another short-term continuing resolution is not acceptable. Further, this bill continues the misguided priorities that we have seen from the Republican leadership of the House for the last several months. It cuts vital domestic programs that families, communities, and States rely on during these difficult economic times. Let me just give you a few examples of the cuts to programs that will directly affect the people in Massachusetts that I am honored to represent. H.R. 1363 would cut the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which helps preserve open space, by another $71.5 million. It cuts $700 million from the Clean Water and Drinking Water Revolving Funds. I don't know of a community in this country that doesn't have infrastructure needs, and the State revolving fund is one of the few areas where they can get money to help repair sewers and deal with storm water and a bunch of other issues, but they cut it by $700 million more. Most egregiously of all, it cuts $390 million from the LIHEAP contingency fund. That's fuel assistance for poor people, mostly elderly, who need it as fuel prices continue to rise. So there it is, Mr. Speaker. There is the clear difference of priorities between the two parties. The Republicans would rather shut down the government than provide heating assistance to some of the most vulnerable people in this country. I should also note that this bill would provide funding for the Department of Defense for the rest of the year, but nothing else. Every Member of this House believes that making sure our troops get their paychecks is a top priority. The men and women who serve this country in uniform deserve our support. But, Mr. Speaker, so do the seniors of this country. So do the children of this country. So do the poor and the hungry of this country. So do the people who can't afford hot-shot lobbyists and multimillion dollar ad campaigns. We are supposed to represent them too. A couple of days ago we saw where the Republican priorities are. They made them crystal clear in their budget proposal. Eliminate Medicare as we know it. Eviscerate Medicaid. Cut funding for education. Cut funding for medical research, health care, environmental protection, and infrastructure in order to make sure that the wealthiest individuals and companies can keep their special interest tax breaks. Oil companies continue to get their taxpayer subsidies. Why they need them, I don't know, but they continue to get them. And they are protected. Donald Trump continues to get his tax cut under their proposal, but they go after programs that impact working people and people who are the most vulnerable. That may fly on Wall Street, but it sure isn't going to fly on Main Street. So, again, Mr. Speaker, I say that enough is enough. It is time for serious people to do some serious legislating. The bill before us is a million miles away from that. I would urge my colleagues to reject this closed rule and to reject the underlying legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have no disagreement with the gentlelady from North Carolina in terms of trying to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse in government. I think we're all for a leaner government. But what we're not for is a meaner government. And that is what the Republican policies are all about--a meaner government. There's a story that I will submit to the Record here. It's talking about the Republican budget. It says the Budget Office claims the GOP Medicare plan could lead to rationing, making it more difficult for our senior citizens to get health care. By basically obliterating Medicare, you may save a few bucks in the short term, but you're going to deny them care in the long term. I don't see how that is right. Secondly, I didn't talk about the past in my opening statement; the gentlelady did. I just want the record to be clear about the past and how we got into this mess. When Bill Clinton left office, we eliminated the deficit and we were paying down the debt. We had all-time high job growth. George Bush comes to office. His reckless tax cuts are not paid for and hundreds of billions of dollars are added to our debt. A Medicare prescription drug bill was not paid for--wasn't paid for--and was more expensive than the Republicans advertised. Add that on to our debt, plus two wars that weren't paid for. When the first President George Bush went to war against Saddam Hussein when Iraq invaded Kuwait, he went around and he got member nations in the area to actually pitch in to help pay for the war so that the burden wasn't only on the United States. George Bush II comes into office--two wars, we don't pay for them. There's no tax on anybody. It gets onto our credit card. That is just not right. Men and women in uniform are sacrificing, their families are sacrificing, and the rest of us have been asked to do nothing. They just put it on the credit card. That is not right. So, Mr. Speaker, I have a disagreement with the gentlelady not over the issue of whether we need to reduce waste and abuse in government. I have an issue with her over the way they're doing it. They protect tax breaks for big oil companies, tax breaks for Donald Trump and subsidies for corn ethanol, a big waste of money. All that's protected. And the way they balance the budget is not by going after that. They go after programs that help poor people, LIHEAP, WIC--the Women, Infant and Children's program of all things--and Pell Grants. We all know that in order to have a strong economy in the 21st century, we need a well- educated workforce, and they cut Pell Grants. They just slash them. That's where they're cutting, cutting programs that help average people, regular people and people who are vulnerable. What government should be about is making sure that those people are taken care of and not forgotten. Instead, their budget and their priorities are protecting those who have a lot of wealth who don't need government. And I think what they're doing is misguided. Let me just read one final thing here. This is a story that just appeared on Politico, breaking news. President Obama is calling House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid back to the White House to negotiate on the budget at 1 p.m. Just before the announcement from the White House, Senator Reid said on the Senate floor that the numbers are basically there, but that the only thing holding up an agreement is ideology. He said he was not nearly as optimistic about reaching a deal as he was last night. So, in other words, Mr. Speaker, this is no longer about numbers. And I regret that so much has had to be cut in order to satisfy my friends on the other side of the aisle. But now this is about ideology. They have all these riders on these bills, riders that deal with abortion, National Public Radio, and riders that undercut EPA's ability to ensure there is safe drinking water and clean air. They are insisting on all of these ideological riders to be attached to whatever budget deal before they sign it. It is not about the numbers anymore; it is about a rigid, right-wing ideology. So enough is enough, Mr. Speaker. I urge my Republican colleagues to go back to the negotiating table and negotiate in good faith, let's get a deal, and let's move on to next year's business. [From NPR, Apr. 5, 2011] Budget Office: GOP Medicare Plan Could Lead to Rationing (By Julie Rovner) Excerpts: Buried deep in the analysis of the proposal offered Tuesday by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the CBO suggested that moving Medicare beneficiaries from public to private insurance could actually end up slowing the introduction of new and potentially life-saving medical technology . . . The key problem, according to CBO, is that private insurance is, well, likely to be more expensive than insurance that's run by the government, competition notwithstanding. ``Under the proposal, most elderly people would pay more for their health care than they would pay under the current Medicare system,'' the CBO said. And because those seniors would be paying more, those private plans would be looking for ways to bring health spending down . . . The CBO acknowledges that private health insurance plans would have cost-reduction tools available that government-run Medicare does not--things like limiting benefits, changing co-payment amounts, managing how patients use services, and controlling which doctors and hospitals are in their networks. ``(S)uch steps could serve as alternatives to limiting payments to providers in restraining health care costs and insurance premiums,'' the report says. But at the same time, it warns, the higher payments could affect care. Beneficiaries might be less likely to use ``new, costly, but possibly beneficial, technologies and techniques'' than they do under current law. In other words, exactly the sort of rationing that so frightened Republicans when they were fighting the health law--the health law that Ryan's proposal would repeal, by the way. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, of every 10 people going hungry today, six are women. They are hungry not only because they are the majority poor, with the least access to schools, land, and markets, but because every mother will go to bed hungry before her child does. H.R. 1 cuts life-saving food aid, humanitarian and development programs almost in half. These programs make up less than 1 percent of the Federal budget. Slashing them does nothing to fix the deficit but will be devastating to millions of poor women and children. When world food prices are at all-time highs and there are more hungry people in the world than ever before, this is unconscionable. Over 30,000 people--religious and social leaders--are fasting in opposition to these budget cuts. Hunger should not be a partisan issue. I urge all my colleagues to join these brave citizens and reject these draconian cuts. Support programs that protect the hungry and the most vulnerable here at home and around the world. Learn more at www.hungerfast.org.