Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1742 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee for yielding me the time and for his leadership on this issue. I also want to thank Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren for her leadership. Mr. Speaker, I am rising, basically, to praise my colleague from Tennessee, Representative Duncan. A few months ago, he came to the Rules Committee with this case, and he tried to amend a bill to be able to find a way to help turn this terrible tragedy into something that was reasonable so that this family could stay together and could stay here in the United States. Unfortunately, the measure was not germane to the bill that was pending before the Rules Committee, but he stuck with this issue, and I want to thank him for his perseverance because of this terrible tragedy where Sergeant Ferschke was killed in Iraq in August of 2008. It was Sergeant Ferschke's intention that his wife would reside in the United States and that his child would be raised in the United States. Without this legislation, that would not be able to be the case. Without legislative action, Mrs. Ferschke would have been forced to return to Japan at the end of her B-2 tourist visa, and she would not have been able to raise her son here in the United States despite his United States citizenship. I think any reasonable person looking at this case believes that Mrs. Ferschke and her son should be able to stay here in the United States. Congressman Duncan has helped to close this terrible loophole, so I just want to rise and say that, without his perseverance, without his taking this case to heart and without his intervention, quite frankly, this terrible tragedy would be even worse for this family. I thank my colleague for his work on this issue. I also thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding to me. You know, we get up here and we always fight with each other on different issues, but here is a case where I think we can all come together for a common purpose and praise Representative Duncan from Tennessee for his work on this. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6397. Mr. Speaker, this is an important piece of legislation that fixes an unintended loophole in our immigration law that has caused additional heartache for the family of a Marine killed in action from Maryville, Tennessee. In July 2008, U.S. Marine Corps Sergeant Michael Ferschke married the love of his life in Japan, where he was stationed. The couple was overjoyed to be expecting their first child at the time of their marriage. Tragically, Sergeant Ferschke was killed in Iraq during combat just one month later in August 2008. Since the birth of her son in January 2009, Sergeant Ferschke's widow, Hota, has been living in a constant state of uncertainty. Because Michael's death precluded the couple from consummating their proxy marriage--despite Hota's pregnancy at the time of the ceremony-- the U.S. Department of Homeland Security does not recognize that they were legally married. Hota has tried every legal means--and done everything right--to try to immigrate to the United States and raise their son as they had planned to do near Srgt. Ferschke's family in Tennessee. Without legislative action, Ms. Ferschke will be forced to return to Japan at the end of her B2 tourist visa. If this comes to pass she will not be able to raise her son in the United States, despite his U.S. citizenship. Michael and Hota had clear intentions to raise their family in Tennessee. Michael's tragic death should not prevent Hota from receiving the legal benefits, including citizenship, that other legal widows of American servicemen are entitled too. I want to thank my friend, Congressman Jimmy Duncan, for his leadership on this issue and for bringing this loophole to our attention. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 6397.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman. I learned a great deal from Sophie, and I admired her dedication and her loyalty to Joe Moakley. He treasured her as one of his most valued staff members and he truly loved her, because Sophie gave that job her all. I got to work with Sophie in a new capacity when I got elected to Congress and she was already on the Rules Committee, and she taught me a lot about the Rules Committee, even more than I got to know when I worked for Joe Moakley. I think she is an incredible human being, and everybody who has had the honor and the privilege of working with her I think knows what I am talking about. So, Mr. Speaker, I would like to just say that I think Sophie is a model for all of us, not just members of the staff, but Members of Congress, about what public service is all about. She has had her fingerprints on every major piece of legislation that has impacted the lives of millions of people. I will always admire her for that. But most importantly and most personally, I admire her for being an incredible friend. She has been a wonderful friend for many, many years, and I am going to miss her a lot, and I think I speak for everybody when I say I love her a lot.

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the chairwoman for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I support the rule and I support the CR, and I hope that we will promptly act on it. Mr. Speaker, rather than taking my time to talk about how the disgraceful policies of my Republican friends drove this economy into a ditch nearly bankrupting us and how we have had to spend all this time trying to clean up their awful mess, and rather than talk about the Republicans' new pledge that they all just took that would drive this economy deeper into debt by, get this, passing tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires--not about middle-class tax cuts, but millionaires and billionaires; and that will be debt on the backs of our kids, and we will have to borrow that money from China and other countries--and, Mr. Speaker, rather than talking about how my Republican friends opposed all of our Democratic efforts to try to close corporate tax loopholes that eliminated tax incentives that allowed companies to ship jobs overseas, losing American jobs; and rather than talking about a number of the policies that they have stood for that I think have brought this country right to the edge of a cliff, I want to take my time instead to join with the distinguished chairwoman to praise my colleague and my friend, Sophie Hayford, who I am going to miss very much, not only because I think she represents the civility that desperately needs to come back to this House, but because she has been an incredible public servant. At a time when we hear people denigrate those who work for the government, she is an example of what a government worker is all about--somebody who dedicates her entire life to trying to make the lives of others in this country better. I have learned an awful lot from Sophie. I first met her back in 1982, when I came to work here for Congressman Joe Moakley of South Boston, and Sophie was already a seasoned staffer when I arrived.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, hunger and poverty are scourges on our society, but they do not have to be enduring or debilitating. Over the last hundred years, we have created a safety net system in this Nation that ensures that low-income families do not go without food, shelter and healthcare. No longer do we see mass starvation in this country. Communities aren't ravaged by disease and low-income families, for the most part, have access to doctors and medicine when they do face illnesses. The sad fact, however, is that we are not winning the battle against poverty in this country. Recent Census data show that over 43 million Americans now live in poverty and, of those people, over 15 million are children. If that weren't bad enough, we are continuing to recover from the worst economic times this Nation has faced since the Great Depression. Federal and state funds are tight and private donations to non-profits and charities aren't coming in at the same levels as before the recession. It's easy to talk the talk when it comes to poverty. There may be a press release or a quick statement for the local papers. Some may even give a policy speech talking about the travesty of poverty and professing the need to do something bold. But actions speak louder than words. We need to renew our commitment to fighting poverty. We need to refresh our thinking about the way our communities target poverty. Frankly, it's time we start addressing poverty in a new way, a way that reflects the challenges of low-income families while respecting these difficult economic times. That's why I introduced ``The National Opportunity and Community Renewal Act'' today. I'm pleased that Senator Bob Casey from Pennsylvania introduced a companion version in the Senate and I look forward to working with him on this issue. The idea is simple--reduce poverty by better utilizing federal and state resources in smarter and more sensible ways. Making ends meet through federal programs is not how people in this country want to live. The families I talk to want good paying jobs that allow them to put good, nutritious food on their table; pay for a roof over their head; and have a job that provides access to good, comprehensive healthcare. But the current federal safety net programs don't help people lift themselves out of poverty. This bill, however, will help them do that. The National Opportunity and Community Renewal Act will award ten communities grants for five years each to test new and innovative approaches to poverty reduction. Each award is for $10 million that must be used in ways that will reduce poverty in half over 10 years. In other words, this bill allows communities to come up with antipoverty plans while maximizing the amount of funding spent on these plans. We know that some plans work better in urban areas than in rural areas; that fighting poverty in Central Pennsylvania is different than fighting poverty in Central Massachusetts. But that doesn't mean the goals and means are any different. Let me be clear--no one should interpret this legislation as cut to the social safety net. During these difficult times, we must ensure that low-income families have the support they need to put food on the table, heat their homes and receive proper medical care. This legislation is a starting point in this effort, a way to begin the dialogue on ways to improve and more efficiently run our anti-poverty programs. Frankly, it's a way to start the conversation on how to cut poverty in half in 10 years; a way to shift the conversation from individual safety net programs that manage the problem to a focus on results that actually help lift people out of poverty. We need to commit to reducing poverty, but we need to do so smartly and responsibly. We need to allow communities the flexibility to come up with plans that suit their communities and we need to properly but responsibly fund these programs. Ultimately, we'll be judged by the results of these programs. I believe we can reduce poverty in these participating communities by half in 10 years and I'm looking forward to working Senator Casey, Father Larry Snyder and the Catholic Charities community on this worthy project.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, today I introduced the ``Justice for Sergei Magnitsky Act of 2010'' in the House. This bill is the result of a recent hearing I chaired as Co-Chairman of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission on the human rights situation in the Russian Federation. During this important hearing, the Commission heard extraordinary testimony regarding an extraordinary senior Russian lawyer and tax advisor, Sergei Leonidovich Magnitsky, who vigorously represented his client, the Hermitage Capital Ltd/HSBC, before the relevant Russian authorities regarding the fraudulent take-over of Hermitage subsidiaries and an elaborate tax fraud scheme which was designed to defraud the Russian Treasury of an estimated of 5.4 billion rubles (USD $230 million). Mr. Magnitsky testified before the Investigative Committee of the Russian Prosecutor Office on June 5, 2008 and October 7, 2008, and specifically implicated Lt. Colonel Artem Kuznetsov and Major Pavel Karpov of the Interior Ministry in the fraud scheme, among other officials. In a Kafkaesque turn of events, instead of investigating those officials, the Ministry of Interior charged Mr. Magnitsky with tax fraud and arrested him on November 24, 2008 and placed him in Moscow's pre-trial detention facility of the Moscow Branch of the Interior Ministry on the orders of Major Oleg Silchenko. Despite the fact that Lt. Colonel Kuznetsov's was implicated in the fraud scheme, he served as a senior member of the investigation team responsible for Mr. Magnitsky during the nearly one year pre-trial detention. While Mr. Magnitsky was in good health before he was arrested, only five months into his detention, his health deteriorated significantly. On July 1, 2009, Mr. Magnitsky was given an ultrasound to identify the cause of his medical symptoms and a surgeon diagnosed him with ``calculous cholecystitis'' and ordered another ultrasound, which was to be followed by surgery within a month. One week before his scheduled treatment, on July 25, 2009, and fully aware of Mr. Magnitsky's medical condition, Ivan Pavlovich Prokopenko, head of the pre-trial detention facility Matrosskaya Tishina, approved the transfer of Mr. Magnitsky to Butyrka Prison (Detention Center 77/2). Detention Center 77/2 did not have the appropriate medical facilities to allow Mr. Magnitsky the prescribed medical treatment and necessary surgery. Despite his medical condition, Mr. Magnitsky was not examined by a doctor upon his arrival at the Detention Center 77/2. He was subsequently transferred to eight different cells, with each transfer a marked health deterioration as a result. Undeterred, Mr. Magnitsky testified again on October 13, 2009 concerning the complicity of Interior Ministry officials in the theft of 5.4 billion rubles from the Treasury and accused them of investigating him in retaliation for his testimonies. On November 11, 2009, Mr. Magnitsky filed a petition with the interior Ministry and the court stating his determination to bring to trial officials who falsified the case against him. On November 13, 2009, he wrote petitions in which he stated that he had been transferred again to a new cell during the night, and that he was intentionally deprived of sleep and hot food. As a result he developed acute pain and vomiting and insisted on seeing a doctor and an ultrasound examination that was prescribed to him in July 2009. This examination was never carried out. After having been denied medical treatment for four months, Mr. Magnitsky's condition became critical and he died on November 16, 2009. Madam Speaker, this injustice cannot stand. And while no words will comfort the painful loss of the Magnitsky family--Sergei is survived by his wife and two children--his case at least got international exposure because of the wherewithal and connections of his employer, Hermitage Capital Management of London. In that aspect, Sergei's case is similar to that of Mikhail Khodorkovsky and the Yukos case. But how many unknown Sergei Magnitskys and Mikhail Khodorkovskys languish unjustly in Russian prisons because of corruption? How many voices critical of the Russian government have been silenced this way? Madam Speaker, the Russian Federation remains a crucial world power of critical importance to the United States in vital policy areas, including, but not limited to, nuclear proliferation issues such as in Iran and North Korea, disarmament agreements, global warming, the war on terror, and the international economic crisis. I therefore applaud our Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for working hard to strengthen and deepen our ties with Russia and the Russian people, which reflect the important role Russia continues to play today. I believe that my bill directly contributes to those deepening ties by establishing human rights accountability. Under my bill, the individuals who have--in the determination of our Secretary of State-- directly contributed to the death of Sergei Magnitsky will be put on a visa ban list until they have been thoroughly investigated. It further requires the Russian government to undertake significant reform steps to bring the Russian prison system into compliance with international standards. We must ensure that these perpetrators do not get rewarded with shopping trips on New York's Fifth Avenue or elsewhere in the U.S.--that is the least we can do for Sergei. Furthermore, my bill will ensure that no U.S. bank accounts can be used to transfer the ill- gotten spoils of this fraud, and any such assets are frozen, so they can be returned to their rightful owner, the Russian people.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I would like to share with my colleagues a message I received last week from Technology Solutions Group--LAST Armor, a manufacturing company in Franklin, Massachusetts, and a production facility of QinetiQ-NA (QNA). This company keeps good jobs in Franklin--but more importantly, Mr. Speaker, they save lives in Afghanistan. The Franklin facility produces what is called ``net armor'' to protect a wide range of vehicles that transport our soldiers on missions in Afghanistan. This net design was developed jointly by QNA, DARPA and ONR. Easy to use, these QNA nets provide many types of vehicles with 360-degree protection, including overhead, from rocket- propelled grenades (RPGs). This ultra-lightweight, low-cost and easily adaptable protection will even defeat multiple RPG hits. Earlier this year, I toured the Franklin facility. I had the opportunity to talk with the workers and plant managers, and I saw the net armor they were manufacturing. I heard the enthusiasm and pride they had in their work, and I tried to imagine how the light-weight nets that I held could possibly stop a rocket-launched grenade. And then last Thursday, I received a note from the company. It was a story that appeared September 22nd in an online newsletter from Fort Campbell, Kentucky. It's written by U.S. Army 1st Lieutenant R.J. Peek, who is with the 3rd Battalion, 187th Infantry, 101st Airborne Division. His story is filed from Ghazni Province in Afghanistan, and he talks about how his platoon was ambushed and his truck, covered with the new net armor, had taken three direct hits by insurgent RPGs and not one penetrated the truck. He finishes his story with the following quote, ``All of the Soldiers whose vehicles were hit by RPGs are alive today and still in the fight'' because the QNA nets did exactly what they were supposed to do. Madam Speaker, I hope all the workers at the Franklin facility have seen this report from the field. We are proud of the courage and sacrifice of our uniformed men and women in Afghanistan. But we are equally as proud of the men and women in Franklin, Massachusetts whose labor helps save the lives of our troops each and every day. Madam Speaker, I would like to enter into the Record 1st Lieutenant Peek's story, so that all my colleagues can appreciate his candor and the description of what his platoon faces every day, and how the QNA nets are making a difference. [From Clarksville Online, September 22, 2010] (By U.S. Army 1st Lt. R.J. Peek, 3rd Battalion, 187th Infantry, 101st Airborne Division) Ghazni Province, Afghanistan.--When 3rd Battalion, 187th Infantry began using new mine-resistant, ambush-protected all-terrain vehicles, they also made the switch from bar cage armor to net armor. When the first few trucks moved into circulation with the net armor, many Soldiers were concerned about its effectiveness, but the nets were combat tested September 19th, and Soldiers approved. U.S. Army 1st Lt. Matthew Ward from Herndon, VA, platoon leader of 2nd Platoon, B Company, 3rd Battalion, 187th Infantry, confessed he was skeptical about the nets. ``I just didn't think the thin net would be able to safeguard the vehicle and the Soldiers from a rocket-propelled grenade.'' While conducting a patrol along a highly traveled road in eastern Ghazni, insurgents initiated an ambush from close range. Less than 100 meters away, insurgents fired a volley of RPG rounds, followed by a series of machine gun fire and then another RPG. The Soldiers of 2nd Plt., B Co. returned fire and moved their trucks forward out of the ambush. From their new position, the Soldiers continued to fire, forcing the enemy to break off the attack and flee. What amazed the Soldiers, and the leaders, was the trucks had taken three direct hits by insurgent RPGs and none had penetrated the trucks. ``The worst effect of the insurgents' RPG fire was that I got my bell rung a bit,'' said U.S. Army Pfc. Joseph Sweat from Smithville, Tennessee. Sweat was driving one of the trucks that was hit. ``The RPGs detonated at the nets, failing to penetrate the vehicle's armor,'' said U.S. Army Staff Sgt. Cameron Erisman from Hiram, GA. ``It turns out, the nets did exactly as advertised they would do,'' added Ward. ``All of the Soldiers whose vehicles were hit by RPGs are alive today and still in the fight.''

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker I rise today to congratulate and thank AdCare Hospital of Worcester, Inc. on this 35th Anniversary for its unwavering dedication to our community in its mission to help individuals and their families overcome the disease of addiction. Over the years AdCare Hospital has provided invaluable services to our community by responding to area demand for alcohol and drug abuse treatment. I am proud to have an institution in the Massachusetts Third Congressional District that has provided so many resources to the citizens of the district and beyond for so many years; your work is truly remarkable. Conceived in 1975 as a 10-bed alcoholism unit in an acute care hospital setting, ADCARE grew into one of the most comprehensive provider's of alcohol and drug abuse services in the country. In 1984 Adcare converted the entire 114-bed medical/surgical facility to an addiction treatment hospital. ADCARE continued to expand beyond its inpatient roots, by opening Adcare Outpatient Services Worcester in 1986. Their mission of providing quality alcohol and drug abuse treatment in a safe environment and throughout the continuum of care expanded even further with the establishment of AdCare Outpatient Services in Boston in 1989, North Dartmouth in 1993, Warwick, Rhode Island in 2000, Quincy in 2003, and West Springfield in 2005. All are fully licensed clinics in convenient locations throughout Massachusetts and Rhode Island. ADCARE is accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Organizations and Licensed by the Department of Public Health demonstrating strict compliance with national standards for patient safety and quality of care and is a member of the Northeast Node of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) Clinical Trials Network, participating in research designed to improve clinical treatment outcomes. ADCARE continues to expand national access to treatment through 1-800-ALCOHOL, the nationwide Admission and Referral Line, founded and sponsored by ADCARE HOSPITAL. Over the years AdCare Hospital employees have answered more than 3 million 1-800-ALCOHOL calls; admitted over 150,000 patients for a total of over 1 million days of patient care; and conducted in excess of 750,000 outpatient visits to individuals and families seeking services for substance abuse treatment. This was achieved thanks to a committed clinical, medical and administrative staff that all work together to treat a debilitating and chronic disease. Madam Speaker, I am sure that the United States House of Representatives joins me in recognizing AdCare Hospital of Worcester for its important role in our community.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, in 1992, when the historic Peace Accords were signed ending El Salvador's 12 years of civil war, many of us anticipated a new and prosperous era for that country. In the following years, political competition flourished and electoral processes matured. The ruling ARENA party maintained its power, base, and organization, winning consecutive elections for the next 17 years. But in 2009, the FMLN opposition party won the presidency. It was a watershed moment for El Salvador. Sadly, many things did not change over these years. The ability of the courts and justice system to hold elites, government officials, and members of the security forces accountable for crimes, including human rights crimes, continued to fail, reinforcing a culture of impunity. The newly created police, although light years ahead of the old security forces, was infiltrated by criminal elements and human rights abusers who blocked investigations and collaborated with criminal groups. The poor did not benefit from trade and investment, and international aid diminished, including U.S. aid. And the migration of Salvadorans to the U.S. is as great or greater as it was during the civil war. And some things got worse. Little could I have imagined the violence in El Salvador becoming worse after the war, but it has. Criminal networks invaded the country and use it to traffic drugs, guns, human beings, and other contraband throughout the hemisphere. Youth gangs are exploited; poor neighborhoods are terrorized; security and judicial authorities are corrupted; and crime, violence, and murder have exploded. This is the reality inherited by Mauricio Funes when he became president 18 months ago. I have had the privilege of meeting President Funes. I find his administration to be pragmatic, committed to improving the lives of the majority poor, and addressing the crime and corruption that are robbing the country of its much-longed-for peace. However, there are longstanding institutional problems that remain obstacles to reform, the pursuit of justice, and even the consolidation of democracy. Among them, in my opinion, is the Attorney General's Office--the Fiscalia--where countless cases of murder, corruption, drug trafficking, money laundering, and other crimes are stymied. But the Funes administration is taking courageous and positive steps to confront these challenges. These include naming an Inspector General for the National Civilian Police, Zaira Navas, who is serious about ensuring that an honest, hardworking police force is not sullied by corrupt cops. This month, Inspector General Navas suspended from duty over 150 police officers. These ``bad apples'' are under investigation for corruption and links to criminal and drug organizations. Rather than embracing this effort to clean up the police, intransigent forces chose instead to create a new commission inside the National Assembly to investigate the Inspector General. This action has been accompanied by renewed death threats against her life. Last December, Senator Leahy praised the hard work of PCN Inspector General Navas and the importance of strengthening the rule of law in El Salvador. I agree. I believe Inspector General Navas is taking courageous action, and I encourage the State Department and the U.S. Embassy to support her in these efforts. President Funes is exploring the possibility of establishing an independent commission, similar to the one created in Guatemala, under the auspices of the United Nations, to investigate drug and criminal networks and key human rights crimes. This would ensure an independent investigation into many of the criminal cases and charges of official corruption that have languished in the Fiscalia for years. It could open new paths to ending impunity. President Funes is also working with Mexican President Calderon, the Obama administration, and his Central American neighbors to confront the escalating penetration of the region by major drug cartels and criminal networks. He is seeking coordinated strategies and action, increased aid and assistance, stronger laws and policies, and more effective social investment. El Salvador has experienced several tragic episodes of violence carried out by drug members, and public revulsion at gang crimes is at an all-time high. President Funes is seeking to respond decisively to this terrible situation, while not repeating the mistaken policies that sounded tough but failed to reduce crime or keep young people out of gangs. He has also established an advisory commission on gangs and gang-related violence. One program that might be a model is the Center for Formation and Orientation at St. Francis of Assisi Parish in Mejicanos. It has had success working with young people on rejecting gang life and providing those who want to leave the gangs with advice, education, and training. Its pastor, Father Antonio Rodriguez, has made important contributions to the discussions about how to address the youth violence. Mr. Speaker, it is in the best interest of the U.S. to support the Funes administration as it seeks to strengthen the rule of law, clean up institutional corruption and crime, and help lead the region in breaking impunity and confronting criminal threats. [From the Los Angeles Times, Sept. 11, 2010] Salvadoran Leader Speaks of Criminal Gangs' Links to Drug Cartels El Salvador's president, Mauricio Funes, the country's first leftist leader since the end of its civil war in 1992, finds himself preoccupied with a deepening struggle against criminal gangs and international drug cartels. Since winning office in 2009, Funes has deployed the army to back up police, who are trying to curb a drug-fueled homicide rate that claims about 12 victims a day. On Thursday, he signed a controversial law criminalizing gang membership. The gangs responded by shutting down nationwide public transportation with the threat of violence. During a visit to Los Angeles this week to meet with community leaders on immigration issues, Funes spoke with Times editors about the growing links between Salvadoran gangs and international drug cartels, and he argued that boosting U.S.-led economic investment holds the most hope for defeating drug violence and illegal immigration. Who controls the narcotics traffic in El Salvador? Everybody. There are Salvadoran cartels in connection with Colombian cartels. Guatemalan cartels are there. And recently we have found evidence of the presence of [the Mexican-based drug cartel] Los Zetas. Just a few days after I came to office, I received an intelligence report saying that Los Zetas were exploring the territory and that they had started to make contacts with Salvadoran narcotraffickers and Salvadoran gangs, particularly the MS [Mara Salvatrucha, a transnational gang born in L.A.'s Salvadoran immigrant community]. It is the one that has shown, up to now, to have the most firepower. The change that has occurred lately is that the [criminal] gangs have become involved in the business. At the beginning, the gangs were just a group of rebel youngsters. As time moved on, the gangs became killers for hire. Now the situation is that the gangs have become part of the whole thing. They control territory and they are disputing territory with the drug traffickers. Why? Because they need to finance their way of life: basically, getting arms. Have state institutions been infiltrated? I am convinced that the army is not infiltrated by the cartels. The grenades and the arms that these people have, they have not gotten them through the army. That does not mean that there are not other institutions that are infiltrated. Since my government started, we have dismissed more than 150 police officers, out of a total of slightly more than 20,000, because of suspicions they were involved with organized crime. I have my suspicions that the judicial system is also infiltrated by organized crime. Yes, organized crime has penetrated certain institutions, but these institutions have not collapsed. We are talking about rotten apples, and we still have the opportunity and the time to get rid of them. How do you explain that civilian institutions remain stronger in El Salvador than in Guatemala or Mexico? The 1992 peace accords [which ended the civil war] allowed for a sort of re-foundation of the Salvadoran state. Through that process, it was possible to cleanse the army and security forces that were linked to gross violations of human rights. And now we have a professional armed force. If that cleansing of the armed forces had not taken place, we would probably be in the same situation as Guatemala. Are current U.S. policies on drugs and immigration on the right track? There will be [cartels] as long as there are consumers of drugs. Furthermore, the only way we can prevent more migrants from coming to the U.S. is by providing jobs, opportunities and development. The same thing applies to narcotics. If the United States is concerned about [illegal] immigration and drug traffic, the best solution is a strategic alliance that together will bring development and job opportunities and social benefits to El Salvador.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank my colleague from Maine for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule, and I also rise in support of the underlying legislation. Small businesses are drivers of economic growth and play a pivotal role in creating jobs in our community. In fact, in my home State of Massachusetts, small businesses represent 85 percent of companies and employ over a quarter of our workforce. As I meet with small business leaders across my district, I hear time and time again that access to capital--dollars that allow our small businesses to invest and to grow--is a main concern, especially in these difficult economic times. It is clear to me that small businesses are a vital component of economic recovery. As we work to rebuild our economy and create good- paying jobs here at home, we must support the efforts of small businesses across the country. That is why, Mr. Speaker, we must act today to pass this legislation. H.R. 5297 goes a long way in helping our Nation's small businesses thrive. Specifically, this bill authorizes the creation of a small business lending fund which will enable community banks to increase lending to small businesses. It raises Small Business Administration loan limits, and it improves access to these loans. It provides grants to States in support of small business lending programs. In addition to creating future opportunities for investment, this bill provides small businesses across our country with $12 billion in tax cuts and includes a 100 percent exclusion from capital gains taxes on small business investments. These tax breaks will make it easier for businesses to operate and will increase their capacity to grow. As we invest in our small businesses, we forge a path toward economic prosperity for so many Americans--not only for small business owners, but for those who will be employed by these companies. Improving small business access to capital will foster innovation and encourage the development of new products and services to carry our country forward. Simply put, Mr. Speaker, we have to act now. It's the right thing to do. All of my colleagues who have gone home and talked to their constituents, and particularly to small business owners, know that this issue of extending credit is a big deal. They want us to help, and that's what this bill is about. So I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to think about the small businesses that we represent and to support this rule and the underlying legislation. And I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to put people ahead of politics this time and help our small businesses.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, Pakistan is suffering from the worst floods in 80 years. About 20 million people have been affected; 1.2 million homes damaged; infrastructure destroyed; and water-borne diseases, such as cholera, are spreading. Significant resources from abroad are needed to alleviate the suffering and long-term consequences. The U.S. government has responded quickly and effectively. But we also need to address the long-term recovery. We need to help the Pakistani people get back on their feet, even as the waters subside. I commend the thousands of American individuals, NGOs and private companies that have responded with contributions. I call on them to continue to make or expand their donations. Coca-Cola, Procter & Gamble, Monsanto, GlaxoSmithKline Pakistan, Western Union, Americares and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation are just some of the large donors that have stepped up to the plate. Donations can be made via the State Department's secure web page at www.state.gov/pakistanrelief/ index.htm. Donation forms can be downloaded at http://www.state.gov/ documents/organization/146290.pdf. Americans can also donate $10 by texting ``FLOOD'' to 27722 (Standard text messaging and data usage rates apply).

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I commend the U.S., Israeli, and Palestinian leaders for renewing direct peace talks in Washington earlier this month and continuing them in the Middle East. Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas have shown great courage in deciding to end the conflict within 1 year. We know it won't be easy, but I felt such hope when I saw these two leaders stand together and condemn the deadly attacks on Israel citizens by Hamas. Neither let the enemies of peace undermine the start of negotiations. This speaks volumes about their commitment to finally achieving a two-state solution. Making peace means making tough choices. Each side will have to make painful concessions. The U.S. can provide support to both parties as they make these tough decisions, choices that have to be made for a better, more secure future for all their peoples. I support the return to direct talks to achieve a lasting peace in the Middle East. And I call on all my colleagues in the international community to support this process.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 1620 provides for consideration of H.R. 4785, the Rural Energy Savings Program Act. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate controlled by the Committee on Agriculture and Energy and Commerce. The rule makes in order as original text an amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in part A of the Rules Committee report, and the rule also makes in order four amendments printed in part B of the Rules report and provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, we all know that too many American families are unemployed. Too many American families are having trouble paying their energy bills. Too many of our manufacturing jobs have gone overseas to China and to other countries. Now, the Democratic Congress has brought bill after bill after bill after bill to the floor to help American families weather these tough economic times and make long-term investments in a clean economy so that the United States maintains its status in the world as a leader in innovation. And every time, and every time we bring a bill to the floor, my friends on the other side of the aisle have overwhelmingly voted ``no.'' They have become the party of no, no to everything. Unfortunately, based on some of the statements by some of my Rules Committee colleagues last night in the Rules Committee, I think that that will be their strategy today on this Rural Star bill. This is a good, cost-effective bill. Rural Star will create high- skilled, high-wage manufacturing and construction jobs while delivering energy savings to millions of Americans by providing access to capital and energy-efficient technologies. In fact, the National Association of Home Builders endorsed this bill, saying that H.R. 4785 will ``save energy for American families, create jobs, and reap environmental rewards.'' Let's not forget that this bill will put people to work, keep good- paying manufacturing jobs here in the United States, and lower the utility bills of families and farms across the country. The truth is more than 92 percent of energy efficiency products are manufactured here in America. Let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker. The truth is that more than 92 percent of energy efficiency products are manufactured right here in the United States of America. We are talking about insulation, windows, doors and water heaters. That's why this is so important. A family or a business will not only hire someone to install these energy efficiency products, but these products will be made in our backyard right here in our own country. Make it in America. That's what Democrats want. That's what we stand for. There shouldn't be one Member of this body who opposes putting Americans to work in this fashion. And not only will H.R. 4785 result in more Americans jobs; it will lower families' and farms' utility bills. This is particularly important in rural areas where customers are facing increasing costs for electric power. Rural electric co-ops are facing a growing demand for electric power at a time when they are constrained from building new generation capacity. The gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Inglis, supports this bill because of the positive impacts on rural electric co-ops, and he said so during testimony last night in the Rules Committee. I want to thank Mr. Inglis for his support and for putting American jobs over partisanship today. To my colleagues who argue that this bill will cost too much, I want to remind them that the programs in this bill involve loans, not grants. These loans must be repaid. CBO has analyzed the legislation and concluded that it does not score. The legislation is fully compliant with statutory PAYGO and House PAYGO rules. Mr. Speaker, I hope everyone will take a close look at the important provisions in the Rural Star bill that will put Americans to work and help transition us to a stable clean energy economy of tomorrow. I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to put partisanship aside and support this rule and the underlying bill. National Association of Home Builders, Washington, DC, September 13, 2010. Hon. Louise Slaughter, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Louise: On behalf of the 175,000 members of the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), I am writing to express our support for H.R. 4785--the Rural Energy Savings Program Act of 2010. We applaud your efforts to create jobs and deliver meaningful energy savings for consumers in rural communities by providing access to capital and efficiency technologies. Without meaningful incentives to improve the energy efficiency of the 130 million existing homes and dwelling units that comprise our nation's housing stock, true energy savings will never materialize from the building sector. NAHB believes that H.R. 4785 helps address this problem in rural America by providing low interest loans to consumers to install energy efficient technologies that will save energy for American families, create jobs, and reap environmental rewards. NAHB further supports the provisions in the legislation that will establish demonstration programs that help implement measurement and verification approaches to energy audits and investments in energy performance improvements with measurable results. NAHB believes that tracking energy savings improvements in older, less-efficient homes is important to demonstrate the voluntary efforts already underway to reduce GHG emissions from the overall building sector. In addition to NAHB's consistent support for other energy efficiency incentives in both new and existing homes, NAHB supports H.R. 4785 as a way to further improve the nation's housing stock and provide avenues for consumers in rural communities to invest in efficiency. NAHB appreciates your thoughtful legislation. Sincerely, Joe Stanton, Senior Vice President, Government Affairs. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1620 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McGOVERN. I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1620. The SPEAKER pro tempore, (Mr. Langevin). Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Dr. Foxx. All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. General Leave

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would say to the gentleman and to my friends on the other side of the aisle that they've all been long enough here to add to the mess, and cleaning up the mess means supporting bills like this that will create American jobs, that will protect American jobs. This is an important bill. Again, for the life of me, I don't understand why there is controversy over a bill to invest in America, to invest in our workers, to help lower utility costs for small businesses, for individuals, for family farms. This is not adding to our deficit one penny. This is a loan program to help people weatherize, you know, their homes, and that's whether it's a mobile home, a farm or a small business. You know, over 90 percent of what is needed to do that is made in America. Why is that a problem? Why do you have a problem with investing in programs that create American jobs? I mean, that's what this is about. You know, again, the Republicans voted 170-1 to protect tax breaks for companies shipping American jobs overseas, and 95 percent of House Republicans have signed a pledge to protect these tax breaks. Enough of that. It is time to invest in American workers. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker used the word ``arrogance,'' and I would just say that I think it is awfully arrogant for Members of this Congress, Members of this body to stand up and vote against bills that help small businesses, that help create American jobs, that provide loans and lending abilities to small businesses. I mean, small business is the engine of our economy, and the bill that we are talking about here today will help a lot of small businesses. We had a small business bill on the floor that we passed-- unfortunately, my friends on the other side of the aisle voted against it, and I'm told that the Senate is going to be taking it up shortly-- that will provide additional credit to small businesses, which is desperately needed. I think many of my colleagues went home over the break and talked to a number of small businesses, and access to credit is a big issue. I think we're going to probably get it. It took a long time and a lot of fighting to get it, but my Republican friends, the Party of No on the other side of the aisle, voted against it. So if you want to talk about arrogance, I think that's arrogance. This bill before us will not add a penny to our deficit, will provide loans that will help create energy-efficient products made here in the United States of America and will also help fund the installation of these products by American workers. This is about creating American jobs. We're going to make it in America, and we're going to create American jobs. That my friends on the other side of the aisle find that controversial or unacceptable is just astounding to me. And when I hear that the money in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act didn't create any jobs when it comes to the issue of weatherization and energy efficiency, again, I read the statistics. The statistics don't lie. I mean, jobs were created. And many houses have been made more energy efficient, which means individuals and businesses don't have to pay as much in utility bills. And that's an important thing for a small business or a struggling family. So this is about American jobs. It's about investing in the American people. And I would just say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, rather than voting overwhelmingly, 170-1, to protect tax breaks for companies shipping American jobs overseas, you ought to focus on ways to help keep American jobs here in the United States of America. That's what we're trying to do with this bill. I urge all my colleagues, don't put politics above people. Don't put politics above people. Do what's right, and let's help create more jobs here in the United States of America. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that what we are debating here is a bill that costs nothing, that adds nothing to our deficit, that will invest in American jobs, that will invest in American products, versus the Republican plan to add $4 trillion to our deficit. That's what this is about here. I hear frustration from people back home all the time. What they want is they want a manufacturing strategy. They want a strategy to help expand and create more American jobs, and they want us to close tax loopholes that encourage outsourcing U.S. jobs overseas. They want us to provide hometown tax credits to help small businesses hire new employees and sell their products and innovation overseas. They want to boost incentives to create American clean energy jobs like making state-of-the-art wind turbines and solar panels, paid for by ending corporate welfare to Big Oil. They want to strengthen rules that the U.S. and its contractors buy products made here in America, especially to build transportation and energy and communication infrastructure. They are tired of us shipping those jobs overseas and importing everything. They want to make it here in America. They want us to force China and other countries to honor fair trade principles or lose American business. There ought to be a consequence if a country like China abrogates its obligations to a treaty or to a trade bill. We need to give incentives to hire and retain America's returning veterans for new clean energy jobs, and we need to strengthen partnerships with businesses to retain America's workers for jobs in the future. That's what the American people want. The frustration is: Why are we importing everything from overseas? Why are you giving tax breaks to corporations that move their operations overseas or hire overseas when we have an unemployment problem here in the United States? What the American people are frustrated about is that we are losing American jobs that really, quite frankly, should be made here in America. So I hear the frustration, but I would say the answer is not adding $4 trillion to our deficit like they want to do. The answer is in supporting programs like this that don't add a cent to our deficit but will create American jobs. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Just a couple of things. I will remind the gentlewoman from North Carolina that what dug us into this ditch were tax cuts for the rich that weren't paid for, two wars that weren't paid for and a Medicare prescription drug bill that was like five times the cost we were told it was, and it wasn't paid for. So let's get the record straight on that. I've got to say, Mr. Speaker, the hypocrisy of the Republican Party just takes my breath away when they get up here and talk about the responsibility that individuals have to pay their taxes. Where were they when we tried to crack down on companies that have opened up P.O. boxes in Bermuda or in the Cayman Islands to avoid paying U.S. taxes, and yet they operate here in the United States and get U.S. Government money? Where were they? You know, the Republicans voted 170-1 to protect tax breaks for companies shipping American jobs overseas, and 95 percent of those Republicans have signed a pledge to protect these tax rates. That's where they are. They want to protect these big corporations that escape paying U.S. taxes, but they want to go after somebody who is working in NIH as a researcher, who is trying to find a cure for cancer. Let's focus on those people. That's what they say. Look, the point of this legislation here is jobs. It's about saving families and farms and small businesses their utility costs, and it's about creating American jobs. It's about buying things here in the United States of America. Why is that so objectionable to the Republicans? Why are they fighting this bill that will invest in our economy, that will invest in American jobs, that will help protect American jobs, and that will be great for American jobs? Why is this so controversial? You know, why do they insist that we need to have an economy in which we buy everything from China? What Democrats are trying to do is to steer this economy toward making it here in America, toward making these products in America and investing in American jobs. That's what this is all about. So rather than protecting tax breaks for corporations that escape paying U.S. taxes and that get incentives to move jobs overseas, how about standing up for the American worker? How about standing up for this concept of making it in America and for creating and expanding jobs here in the United States? I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. For the record, I want to point out to my colleagues that the manager's amendment addresses the issue of Federal employees who are delinquent on their taxes, and I quote from the manager's amendment that a loan shall not be provided to a Federal employee under this act if any of the following apply to the employee: One, that the employee has a seriously delinquent tax debt. So, yes, everybody should pay their taxes. We all should be concerned about the debt and the deficit, but I find it a little bit astonishing that the party that took a surplus that Bill Clinton gave them and turned it into a record deficit is talking about the importance of reducing our deficit. Dick Cheney, I remember the Vice President of the United States, made the statement that deficits don't matter. I strongly disagree with him, but that was said as the Bush-Cheney administration was racking up historic debt. He said it doesn't make any difference. He was wrong. They drove this country into a ditch, and now they are complaining about the size of the tow truck to get us back on the road. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think the American people are not going to be fooled. I also find it a little bit astonishing that again, while my friends are talking about the importance of focusing on the deficit, that they have embraced a tax plan that will double the projected deficit by adding $4 trillion to the deficit over the next 10 years. What they are trying to do is make sure that millionaires and above get at least $100,000 in tax breaks. That is where their priorities are. The purpose of this bill is to not only help families lower their utility costs. The purpose of this bill is to create American jobs. And it is to buy products that are made in the United States of America. Not buy them from China, not buy them from India, not buy them from some other country, but made here in the United States. I'm sorry that my colleague from North Carolina doesn't believe that the jobs that were created in her district as a result of the weatherization investments in the Reinvestment and Recovery Act somehow don't matter. They do. People are working and they are supporting their families. And we need to do more of that. We need to invest in the American people and the American economy. I should also point out so there is no mistake: This is not additional spending. What this is is a loan program. This is not adding one cent to our deficit. This is a loan program where people will pay the loans back. CBO says it doesn't score. It is totally compliant with PAYGO. So this notion that somehow we are adding more spending to the deficit is just plain wrong. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.