Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just make a couple of observations. First of all, the gentleman talked about earmarks. Under the Democratic leadership, earmarks have been curtailed significantly from where they were when the Republicans were in control of the Congress. Secondly, I guess it's good theatrics to hold up all the pages of the appropriations bills that are gathered there, but I should point out to my colleague that the Republican omnibus appropriations acts were longer in length than the one he has there. So what? I mean, has this debate become so shallow that it's all about the number of pages of the bill? The gentleman talked about responsibility. The responsibility that the Democratic majority has is to clean up the mess that the Republicans left us. The responsibility of the Democratic majority is to deal with the years and years of neglect on important programs ranging from transportation to health care to veterans affairs. That is what we are doing here. This is a debate about issues that matter to everyday people. These bills contain monies for roads and bridges, monies for our veterans, monies for our health care facilities. These are important matters, and that is what we should be debating. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes now to the gentleman from Mississippi, the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, Mr. Thompson.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would just make a couple of observations. First of all, I should remind everybody that, when Bill Clinton left office, he left George Bush with a record surplus which President Bush and his Republican Congress squandered. We ended up going from record surpluses to record deficits and debts. That's just a fact. I understand the frustrations of my friends on the other side as their goal is to obstruct and to make sure we get nothing done here. That is what they think is the winning strategy--to basically get nothing done. They are failing in that because Congress is moving and is getting things done. We are beginning to turn this economy around, and we are responding to the needs and the desires of the American people. We are going to continue to do that in this bill. The inclusion of moneys for veterans, for our infrastructure, for health care, for job creation, and for worker training during this difficult economy is vital and important. We are going to get this done, and we are going to help the American people. At this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano). (Mr. SERRANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. I am the lone remaining speaker.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, again, I want to urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this motion to consider so that we can debate and pass this important piece of legislation today. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 961.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the American people, indeed, are struggling, and they are struggling because of years of neglect by President Bush and the Republicans here in this Congress who have neglected, I think, the most important pressing priorities that everyday people face. What we are trying to do is clean up their mess, and this bill represents an increase in spending on important priorities that have been underfunded in the past, everything from infrastructure, because our infrastructure all over our country is crumbling because of neglect, to an increase in funding for veterans health and for veterans housing. I am proud of the priorities in these appropriations bills. We have appropriations bills that have a conscience, that actually respond to the needs of the American people. I understand, as I said before, the frustration of the other side, because what they would like is for us to get nothing done. But the reality, Mr. Speaker, is that this Democratic Congress is doing the opposite. Politico said, ``A Democratic Congress that is enjoying its greatest political and legislative success since at least the beginning of the Clinton administration and arguably since its legislative heyday in the mid-1960s.'' We are moving forward on things like the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to help keep people's jobs and create more jobs; the Cash for Clunkers bill which jump-started the U.S. auto industry and provided consumers with up to $4,500 to trade in an old vehicle for one with higher fuel efficiency. We have passed a bill to help families save their homes. We passed the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, tripling volunteerism opportunities to a quarter of a million people. We have passed health care for 11 million more children that without this bill would not have access to health care. The FDA regulation of tobacco, the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act, the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act, the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act, the military procurement reform bill, strengthening oversight of TARP, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. I can go on and on and on, but this has been an activist Congress, responding to the needs of the American people, responding to those who are struggling or who are out of work, because they were neglected for so many years. We are trying to deal with our debt as well, trying to go back to what President Clinton established, a time of record surpluses. But when the Republicans came in, the first thing they did was pass tax cuts for wealthy people without paying for it. The rich got richer while the middle class got poorer. Mr. Speaker, this omnibus bill before us represents, I think, the right priorities, the priorities of the American people. I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

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

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

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Again, I appreciate the theatrics on the other side. I will remind them again that these bills have all gone through committee and have all been voted on in the House. I would also like to say to my colleagues, I am reminded of the old saying, ``Physician, heal thyself.'' My colleagues complain about earmarks. I don't have a count here, but my guess is that a good portion of those earmarks are Republican earmarks. I would say one other thing, Mr. Speaker. Yes, there is increased spending in this bill for things like veterans, veterans' health. I mean, in this bill, there is money for military construction and family housing to support America's military forces and their families at home and overseas. There is money for Guard and Reserve. There is money for overseas contingency operations; money for Veterans Health Administration; for rural health. There is money here to deal with mental health challenges that so many of our veterans have to deal with, women's veterans programs, long-term care, assistance for homeless vets, medical and prosthetic research, medical facilities, VA construction programs. They go on and on and on. If my colleagues oppose that, fine. They can vote against the final passage of the bill. But I say that these are priorities for our country, and I am glad that the Appropriations Committee has put this in the bill. I am going to enthusiastically support final passage. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I am proud today to rise in support of H.R. 4017 to rename the post office at 43 Maple Avenue in Shrewsbury, Massachusetts, as the ``Ann Marie Blute Post Office.'' Mrs. Blute was a beloved and active member of the tight-knit Shrewsbury community, which is located in my district. She passed away on May 1 of this year after suffering a stroke, and she is dearly missed by her family and all who knew her. Mrs. Blute was a true pillar of her community. Her life revolved around helping others, especially children. She once told her son Joseph that all she ever wanted to be was a mother. Along with her husband, Dr. Robert Blute, Sr., she did just that, raising 11 wonderful children, including former Congressman Peter Blute. Over the years, she took great pride in watching her children, and later her 23 grandchildren and four great-grandchildren, thrive and prosper. What truly distinguished Mrs. Blute, however, is that she was not only a mother to her own children, but she was also a mother figure to so many of the children she came in contact with through her volunteer work. Mrs. Blute had a deep and unwavering passion for social justice and committed herself to helping the sick and the poor. The diversity of Mrs. Blute's community work is truly impressive. She volunteered with the Nazareth Home for Boys, which provides stable housing and a nurturing environment for young boys in difficult times. She also worked with the Mustard Seed, a volunteer soup kitchen that offers hot meals to the homeless. A devout Roman Catholic, she was especially active in St. Mary's Church in Shrewsbury where she served on the Women's Guild and as a catechism teacher and a Eucharistic minister. One of Mrs. Blute's proudest moments came in 1994, when Cardinal John J. O'Connor called her to St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York City to receive the title of Dame of Malta. This is one of the highest honors bestowed by the Catholic church and is given to those individuals who demonstrate an intense devotion to service. I can think of no one more deserving of this prestigious honor than Mrs. Blute. Mr. Speaker, all too often we fail to adequately recognize one of the toughest yet most important jobs of all, being a mother. Mrs. Blute exemplified all of the best qualities of a mother--kindness, compassion, dedication, and hard work. She was kind enough to share herself not only with her own children and family, but also with the entire Shrewsbury community. Hundreds of children in central Massachusetts are no doubt better off today because they had the privilege of knowing Mrs. Blute. We are all eternally grateful for her service and her lasting kindness. The world would be a better place with more people like Ann Marie Blute. Mr. Speaker, naming the Shrewsbury Post Office after Mrs. Blute is a permanent reminder of her beautiful life and commitment to service. I hope that it will also inspire others to take up the call of service that Mrs. Blute answered with such passion. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 4017, and I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts, my colleague, Mr. Lynch, for yielding me the time.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, first I want to commend President Obama for thinking long and hard about the course that he believes the United States should take in Afghanistan. That kind of deliberation is a welcome change from the previous administration. I also want to commend him for making it crystal clear that the United States of America condemns torture. Unfortunately, on the issue of troop levels in Afghanistan, I believe the President has reached the wrong conclusion. Sending 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan will make it 30,000 times harder to extricate ourselves from this mess. If our fight is truly with al Qaeda, then we're in the wrong country. They have moved to Pakistan. Indeed, General Jones has told us that there are maybe less than 100 al Qaeda members in Afghanistan. With the troop increase announced by the President last night, we will have over 100,000 U.S. service men and women in Afghanistan. Do we really need 100,000 troops to go after less than a hundred al Qaeda? President Karzai is corrupt and incompetent. He cheated in the most recent election. By most estimates, 30 percent of his votes was rigged. I don't want any more American service men or women to risk their lives for his corrupt government; and I am a little bit stunned, quite frankly, by the quick and inexplicable pivot by the administration from rightly denouncing Karzai's behavior to now embracing him as our dear friend. I think our support for Karzai actually discredits us with the Afghan people. We have seen that it is exceedingly difficult to train Afghan troops, many of whom are not only illiterate, but unable to add or subtract. The cost of this escalation will be enormous, both in terms of blood and treasure. We will need to borrow billions and billions of additional dollars to pay for this policy. Madam Speaker, at a time of great economic crisis here in the United States, I would suggest that rather than nation-building in Afghanistan, we should do a little more nation-building here at home. It is important to note that the so-called timeline outlined by the President last night envisions the beginning of drawing down our troops in July of 2011--the beginning, not the end. Does anybody really believe that we will not be deeply ensnared in Afghanistan well beyond 2011? Madam Speaker, I do not and I never will suggest that we abandon the Afghan people. They have suffered greatly over the last several decades. We must continue to support meaningful economic development and political assistance. But finally, Madam Speaker, there is another important issue here, and that is congressional involvement. I know the President last night cited the resolution to authorize force in 2001 as providing the authority that he needs. I would argue that it was not Congress' intent in 2001 to authorize decades of nation-building in Afghanistan. We voted to go after the people who committed the horrible atrocities on September 11. I would urge that before a single additional troop is sent, that the United States Congress have the chance to fully debate his proposal and have an up-or-down vote. Under the Bush administration, what usually happened is that additional troops were deployed and then later, once they were already in theater, the administration would submit a supplemental request. That is backwards. We should debate and vote on this critical issue before we send additional troops. And, Madam Speaker, this is a big deal. This is a major escalation and Congress has a major role to play. I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to continue to ask the tough questions and to continue to play our constitutional role.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, today Hamid Karzai was inaugurated to serve another 5-year term as President of Afghanistan. International leaders, including President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton, are calling upon Karzai to reform his government, clean up corruption, and make us all proud of being his allies. Well, Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying that fits this occasion, ``Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.'' The Karzai government is ineffective, incompetent, and corrupt. He stole the elections. He has placed drug lords and warlords in key positions of power and influence. He has tolerated and promoted cronyism, graft, and a flourishing drug trade in his government and throughout his country, all of which have destroyed the confidence of the Afghan people in their own government and contributed to the resurgence of the Taliban. What in the world makes anyone believe that he will be a catalyst for change? If someone won an election by committing rampant fraud, wouldn't he be more likely to commit fraud again and again? Why would he change a winning strategy? If someone personally picked and appointed warlords to take up key positions in his government, what makes you think he will now kick them out? Because the U.S. and Gordon Brown of Great Britain have asked him to? If corruption and cronyism keep his friends healthy, wealthy, and happy, what makes you think he will turn off the spigot? Because he creates a special commission to look into the problem? Because his corrupt police are now going to have a special anticorruption unit and a unit to fight major crime? What have they been doing up until now? Is he going to morph into being a new man, a different kind of leader, because he put a few words into his inaugural address about the need to create a clean government, the kind of government that people can trust? Corruption is like a sickness, easier to spread than to cure. Mr. Speaker, we do not have a partner we can trust in Afghanistan, yet we are asking tens of thousands of our servicemen and -women to go to Afghanistan and fight and die for Mr. Karzai's government. That's too high a price to pay, Mr. Speaker. Soon the President will announce and outline the new U.S. strategy in Afghanistan, including a likely increase in the number of troops to be deployed there. I believe in the President's desire to do what's good for Afghanistan and the United States. I believe he wants to get it right and to be able to hand off to his successor at some point in the future a stable country, an Afghanistan that has turned the corner on violence and division and is beginning to flourish and develop once again. I want that, too. But I do not think that sending more troops to a corrupt government is going to achieve that, no matter how many commissions and special police units are created or how many pretty words are put into an inaugural address. We should not send a single additional soldier to Afghanistan. It's that simple. We cannot afford to be fooled again.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. McGOVERN. Let me just say in closing, I want to associate myself with the comments of my colleague, Mr. Jones. I also will insert in the Record two recent articles, one that appeared in The Washington Post, entitled ``U.S. Envoy Resists Increase in Troops: Concerns Voiced About Karzai,'' in which Ambassador Eikenberry apparently has raised many of the same issues that we have raised here, and the other from the L.A. Times, ``Ridding Afghanistan of Corruption Will Be No Easy Task,'' and it's an article that goes into great detail about the corruption that exists in Afghanistan. [From the Washington Post, Nov. 12, 2009] U.S. Envoy Resists Increase in Troops (By Greg Jaffe, Scott Wilson and Karen DeYoung) The U.S. ambassador in Kabul sent two classified cables to Washington in the past week expressing deep concerns about sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan until President Hamid Karzai's government demonstrates that it is willing to tackle the corruption and mismanagement that has fueled the Taliban's rise, senior U.S. officials said. Karl W. Eikenberry's memos, sent as President Obama enters the final stages of his deliberations over a new Afghanistan strategy, illustrated both the difficulty of the decision and the deepening divisions within the administration's national security team. After a top-level meeting on the issue Wednesday afternoon--Obama's eighth since early last month-- the White House issued a statement that appeared to reflect Eikenberry's concerns. ``The President believes that we need to make clear to the Afghan government that our commitment is not open-ended,'' the statement said. ``After years of substantial investments by the American people, governance in Afghanistan must improve in a reasonable period of time.'' On the eve of his nine-day trip to Asia, Obama was given a series of options laid out by military planners with differing numbers of new U.S. deployments, ranging from 10,000 to 40,000 troops. None of the scenarios calls for scaling back the U.S. presence in Afghanistan or delaying the dispatch of additional troops. But Eikenberry's last-minute interventions have highlighted the nagging undercurrent of the policy discussion: the U.S. dependence on a partnership with a Karzai government whose incompetence and corruption is a universal concern within the administration. After months of political upheaval, in the wake of widespread fraud during the August presidential election, Karzai was installed last week for a second five- year term. In addition to placing the Karzai problem prominently on the table, the cables from Eikenberry, a retired three-star general who in 2006-2007 commanded U.S. troops in Afghanistan, have rankled his former colleagues in the Pentagon--as well as Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, defense officials said. McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, has stated that without the deployment of an additional tens of thousands of troops within the next year, the mission there ``will likely result in failure.'' Eikenberry retired from the military in April as a senior general in NATO and was sworn in as ambassador the next day. His position as a former commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan is likely to give added weight to his concerns about sending more troops and fan growing doubts about U.S. prospects in Afghanistan among an increasingly pessimistic public and polarized Congress. Although Eikenberry's extensive military experience and previous command in Afghanistan were the key reasons Obama chose him for the top diplomatic job there, the former general had been reluctant as ambassador to weigh in on military issues. Some officials who favor an increase in troops said they were surprised by the last-minute nature of his strongly worded cables. In these and other communications with Washington, Eikenberry has expressed deep reservations about Karzai's erratic behavior and corruption within his government, said U.S. officials familiar with the cables. Since Karzai was officially declared reelected last week, U.S. diplomats have seen little sign that the Afghan president plans to address the problems they have raised repeatedly with him. U.S. officials were particularly irritated by a interview this week in which a defiant Karzai said that the West has little interest in Afghanistan and that its troops are there only for self-serving reasons. ``The West is not here primarily for the sake of Afghanistan,'' Karzai told PBS's ``The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer'' program. ``It is here to fight terrorism. The United States and its allies came to Afghanistan after September 11. Afghanistan was troubled like hell before that, too. Nobody bothered about us.'' Karzai expressed indifference when asked about the withdrawal of most of the hundreds of U.N. employees from Afghanistan after a bombing late last month in Kabul. The blast killed five foreign U.N. officials. ``They may or may not return,'' he said. ``I don't think Afghanistan will notice it.'' Eikenberry also has expressed frustration with the relative paucity of funds set aside for spending on development and reconstruction this year in Afghanistan, a country wrecked by three decades of war. Earlier this summer, he asked for $2.5 billion in nonmilitary spending for 2010, a 60 percent increase over what Obama had requested from Congress, but the request has languished even as the administration has debated spending billions of dollars on new troops. The ambassador also has worried that sending tens of thousands of additional American troops would increase the Afghan government's dependence on U.S. support at a time when its own security forces should be taking on more responsibility for fighting. Before serving as the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, Eikenberry was in charge of the Afghan army training program. Each of the four options that were presented to Obama on Wednesday were accompanied by troop figures and the estimated annual costs of the additional deployments, roughly calculated as $1 billion per thousand troops. All would draw the United States deeper into the war at a time of economic hardship and rising fiscal concerns at home. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates have backed a major increase in U.S. forces to drive the Taliban from populated areas and provide Afghan security forces and the government the space to snuff out corruption and undertake development projects. They have argued that only a large-scale counterinsurgency effort can produce a strong Afghan government capable of preventing the country from once again become an al-Qaeda haven. Those views have been balanced in internal deliberations by the hard skepticism of other Obama advisers, led by Vice President Biden. They have argued for a more narrow counterterrorism strategy that would not significantly expand the U.S. combat presence. The most ambitious option Obama received Wednesday calls for 40,000 additional U.S. troops, as outlined by McChrystal in his stark assessment of the war filed in late August. Military planners put the additional annual cost of McChrystal's recommendation at $33 billion, although White House officials say the number is probably closer to $50 billion. The extra troops would allow U.S. forces to attempt to take back and hold several Taliban havens in the southern and eastern regions of Afghanistan. One compromise option put forward by the Pentagon, with the backing of Gates, would deploy an additional 30,000 to 35,000 U.S. troops--fewer than McChrystal's optimal number to carry out his strategy--and rely on NATO allies to make up the 5,000- to 10,000-troop difference. The third option, known by military planners as ``the hybrid,'' would send 20,000 additional U.S. troops to shore up security in 10 to 12 major population areas. In the rest of the country, the military would adopt a counterterrorism strategy targeting forces allied with the Taliban and al-Qaeda, primarily in the north and east, with fighter jets, Predator drones and Special Operations troops that leave a light U.S. footprint on the ground. The military puts the annual cost of that option at $22 billion. The most modest option calls for deploying an additional 10,000 to 15,000 troops. While under consideration at the White House, the proposal holds little merit for military planners because, after building bases to accommodate 10,000 or so additional soldiers and Marines, the marginal cost of adding troops beyond that figure would rise only slightly.

Mr. McGOVERN. I agree with the gentleman. I want to again also thank our friend, Mr. Kagen, for organizing this, and, again, my friend Walter Jones, who's been unbelievably eloquent on the need for there to be more debate on this issue--I appreciate that--and my friend, Mr. Paul, for all of his work. The gentleman raises, I think, a very important point, and that is that there's a cost to this war. There's a cost in terms of human life. My friend is a doctor. He has seen firsthand the trauma that war can inflict on our soldiers. We have all been to Walter Reed Hospital. We have visited many young men and women who have been wounded in this conflict. But there's also a cost, as he mentions, in terms of dollars and cents. I always find it somewhat ironic that we have debates on this floor about health care or child care or feeding the hungry or making sure people have adequate housing or even in terms of giving our veterans more. People always get up and say, Boy, we can't spend any more; we can't spend any more. We have to worry about our debt and our deficit. Well, where is the outrage over the fact that we have spent all this money on these wars in Iraq and Afghanistan off budget? It's all gone on our credit card. I introduced a bill along with Mr. Obey and Mr. Murtha last year, a couple of years ago, saying that we should have a war tax. It got shot down in a bipartisan way. But I think that we need to understand that in these wars it is only really a tiny sliver of our country that is actually sacrificing--our soldiers and their families. The rest of us are being asked to do nothing. But understand one thing. These wars are adding incredible amounts to our deficit and our debt. People need to understand there's a cost here. And we need to have that debate. I'll just tell you one other thing, if I can. Look, I, too, am grateful that the President is deliberating on this issue. I wish the deliberation had occurred before we had the surge that we had a few months ago, because I think it was important to have this debate before any more soldiers got sent there. But I am grateful that he is deliberating. And we don't know what his policy will be. But I'm going to tell you I am personally offended by the fact that the President of Afghanistan is openly taking on the United States, criticizing the United States, for what our motives may be and what our role may be over there when we are supporting him and he is guilty of fraud, he is guilty of corruption. If he were in this country, there would be a special investigation and he would go to jail. This is the extent of the corruption over there. And at some point you have to say that this doesn't work. We have to ask: Why are we there while al Qaeda's in Pakistan, no longer in Afghanistan? What are we trying to do? I don't think it is worth spending the money or sacrificing the lives to defend a corrupt regime. And I think that is where we are right now. Mr. Karzai has had 8 years to show what he is about. That's why when you asked me before whether if he adds anything to his speech about finding corruption, whether I will believe him. No, I will not, because he's had 8 years to prove what he's about. And we have had good members of our Foreign Service community who have resigned over the fact that this government is so corrupt. So, enough. We need to develop a policy that has an exit strategy and it includes a flexible withdrawal strategy. I want to help the Afghan people. I'm not against development aid. I think we should try to help them any way we can, in a way that is sustainable, in a way that works, and in a way that they want. But let's understand that there is no military solution to be had here, and expanding our military footprint will only allow the Taliban greater propaganda points for recruiting and will cost us dearly. So enough. It's time to reevaluate this policy. It is time to figure out a way to end our military involvement, and we need to do so in a sensible and thoughtful way.

Mr. McGOVERN. The answer is no. He's had his chance. He blew it. I wouldn't trust that government to tell me the correct time after what they have done over the last 8 years. We have been supporting this system for 8 years. This war just didn't start. We have been there for 8 years. At some point, enough is enough. The idea of supporting a government that is corrupt and incompetent and saying that we're going to keep this government in power, we're going to help support them, our men and women are going to die for this government, and then at some point magically everything is supposed to be perfect, that we hand over everything back to this government that has stolen from the American taxpayers, this government that is guilty of fraud--I think that this is a mistake. And 57 Members of this House, bipartisan Members of this House, sent a letter to President Obama saying ``no'' to the increase in American forces there. And I think there's a lot more that feel that way. I'd like to insert this into the Congressional Record. Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, September 25, 2009. Hon. Barack Obama, President of the United States, The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. President, as you consider the latest assessment of U.S. military engagement in Afghanistan by General Stanley A. McChrystal, we urge you to reject any recommendation to increase the number of combat troops there, particularly in the absence of a well-defined military exit strategy. We have enormous confidence in the ability of the U.S. military, but we question the effectiveness of committing our troops to a prolonged counterinsurgency war that could last ten years or more, involve hundreds of thousands of troops, and impose huge financial costs on taxpayers already saddled with trillions of dollars of government debt. According to General Charles Krulak (retired), the 31st Commandant of the Marine Corps, the current strategy of protecting the people of Afghanistan with U.S. forces would require an escalation of several hundred thousand additional troops. He warns that our military has already been overburdened: ``Not only are our troops being run ragged but, equally important and totally off most people's radar screens, our equipment is being run ragged.'' It is unlikely that our NATO allies will be able to sustain the political support necessary for continuing such a mission placing even more of a burden on American forces and the American people. 2009 is already the deadliest year for U.S. forces since the war began eight years ago. Fifty-one of the seven hundred and thirty-eight U.S. soldiers who have lost their lives in Afghanistan were killed last month alone. The national Afghanistan election that U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry hoped would lead to a ``renewal of trust of the Afghan people for their government'' was a disaster and will almost certainly have the opposite effect. The official Electoral Complaints Commission in Afghanistan has announced that is has found ``clear and convincing evidence of fraud.'' A government already mired in allegations of widespread fraud and incompetence is now facing serious charges and compelling evidence that it has attempted to steal the national election. A February 2009 ABC/BBC/ARD poll found that only 18 percent of Afghans support increasing the number of U.S. troops in their country. This should come as no surprise. Historically, Afghans have always forcefully resisted the presence of foreign military forces, be they British, Soviet or American. The presence of our forces strengthens the hand of Taliban recruiters. Indeed, an independent analysis early this year by the Carnegie Institute concluded that the presence of foreign troops is probably the single most important factor in the resurgence of the Taliban. We support your administration's declared goals of defeating Al Qaeda and reducing the global terrorist threat. But, we believe that adding even more U.S. troops to the military escalation that your administration ordered in March would be counterproductive. We urge you to consider and pursue the full range of alternative options including applying the lessons of the Cold War where we isolate and contain those who pose a threat to our national security. Mr. President, the last thing that our nation needs as it struggles with the pain of a severe economic crisis and a mountain of debt is another military quagmire. We believe that this is why recent polls consistently show that a majority of Americans are opposed to a military escalation in Afghanistan. We urge you to reject any recommendation for a further escalation of U.S. military forces there. Sincerely, List of Signatures on Bipartisan Letter to President Obama Urging the Rejection to an Increase in Number of U.S. Combat Troops in Afghanistan: James P. McGovern, Walter Jones, Ron Paul, Ed Whitfield, Neil Abercrombie, Jim McDermott, Pete Stark, Bruce Braley, Phil Hare, Raul Grijalva, Lynn Woolsey, Lloyd Doggett, Bob Filner, John Olver, Jose Serrano, Barbara Lee, Jerry Costello, Ben Ray Lujan Alan Grayson. Peter Welch, Kurt Schrader, Tammy Baldwin, Ed Pastor, Yvette Clarke, Sheila Jackson-Lee, John Lewis, Carolyn B. Maloney, Richard Neal, Diane Watson, John Conyers, Jr., Dennis Kucinich, Tim Johnson (IL), Steve Cohen, Keith Ellison, Donna Edwards, Laura Richardson, Michael Honda, Jan Schakowsky. Daniel Maffei, Steve Kagen, Michael Capuano, Sam Farr, Chellie Pingree, Luis Gutierrez, Maurice Hinchey, Maxine Waters, Mazie Hirono, Jared Polis, Roscoe Bartlett, John J. Duncan, Jr., Dana Rohrabacher, Mike Michaud, Earl Blumenauer, Rush Holt, Mike Quigley, Peter DeFazio, Jerrold Nadler. I think the American people are way ahead of us on this issue. The American people get it. They know we're getting sucked into a quagmire, they know we're getting sucked into a war that has no end, and they don't want any part of it. All I'm simply saying is, if al Qaeda is our enemy, then let's focus on al Qaeda. Let's not get bogged down in a war that has no end. Alexander the Great found out he wasn't so great in Afghanistan. Genghis Khan couldn't do anything in Afghanistan; the British, the Soviet Union. I think we got bogged down in a war there, and I think there's a strong argument to be made that's one of the reasons the Soviet Union fell. So we need to debate this thoroughly. We need to know what we're doing. We owe this to our constituents, we owe this to our country. So I hope that before any escalation of American forces occurs that there is a full and thorough debate in this Congress and a vote up or down on whether or not we should send more troops. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. McGOVERN. Thank you very much, and I want to thank you and my other colleagues here for taking the time to come to the floor to talk about this issue. We are at war, and there is very little debate about this war. I think it is important and it is incumbent upon every Member of this House to encourage the fullest possible debate on our policy in Afghanistan. We are told that the President any day now or any week is going to come up with a new policy. There are rumors that it will include an increase in the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan. That needs to be debated. Part of our job is to be a check and balance on the executive branch. And it is our constituents who are going to war. It is our constituents who are dying over there. It is our constituents who are getting wounded over there and coming back to the United States and requiring a lifetime of care. And we need to make sure they get the care that they deserve. They have earned that. I am very concerned about our policy in Afghanistan. I'm concerned for a whole number of reasons. I'm concerned because I don't think there is any definition to our policy. Depending on whom you talk to, you get a different answer as to what our goal is. Originally, our goal was to get al Qaeda. After September 11, I, and I think virtually every Member of this House and every Member of the Senate, voted to use force to go after al Qaeda, who were responsible for the terrible atrocities of September 11. It was the right vote then, and I think it's the right vote now. But al Qaeda, which used to be in Afghanistan, has now moved to Pakistan. We are told by our military experts that there are no al Qaeda in Afghanistan, maybe less than 100, some say. Well, do we need 100,000 American troops to go after less than 100 members of al Qaeda? And if that is not our goal, then this is an example of mission creep where our mission has suddenly enlarged itself without any kind of input from this Congress. Now some say we need to have more troops there to make sure that al Qaeda never comes back to Afghanistan. Well, al Qaeda has not only been in Afghanistan, they have been in Sudan, they have been in Somalia, they have been in Yemen. They have been in south Florida. Do we want to deploy more troops all over there? I'm concerned because there is not a clearly defined mission. When I ran for Congress, I said I would never vote to send anybody to war without a clearly defined mission. That's a beginning, a middle, a transition period and an end. I have asked over and over of the previous administration and this administration, At what point does our military contribution to the political solution that you say will happen in Afghanistan, at what point does our military contribution to that political solution come to an end? And I usually get, ``Good question.'' I don't think anybody knows. I think that that's a problem, and that's something that we need to address. Let me just say I'm also concerned because Afghanistan is not accustomed to a centralized government. Well, we have helped give them a centralized government. And the government of Mr. Karzai is corrupt and incompetent. By conservative estimates, we are told that in the last election, 30 percent of his vote was fraudulent. Thirty percent of his vote was fraudulent. And then there was going to be a run-off election, and then the opposition candidate, I think understandably, said, I don't see how you can put together a credible election in a couple of weeks. And he backed out. So here is our President by default--here's the President by default, who is about to be sworn in again, and the examples of corruption and fraud in his government, the examples of the Afghan government using American taxpayer money for things that they're not intended to be used for--basically stealing from the American taxpayer. The examples of that are too numerous to mention in this debate.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate New Hope Board Members Shirley Coelho and Cheryl Nimiroski for their many years of dedicated service to this inspiring organization. New Hope is a non-profit agency serving communities in Central and Southeastern Massachusetts that is committed to ending domestic violence by helping people live safer lives. Ms. Coelho and Ms. Nimiroski have worked tirelessly over the past 20 and 15 years respectively to provide individuals and families with the resources they need to identify, overcome and prevent domestic violence. Not only have their efforts improved the lives of those they have worked with directly, but they have also made the lives of countless individuals in their greater communities safer. At New Hope's annual meeting on October 29, 2009, Shirley and Cheryl were specially honored with the creation of the ``Coelho-Nimiroski Volunteer of the Year Award'' which will be awarded to an outstanding volunteer who embodies the values of and shows dedication to the mission of New Hope. The creation of this award ensures that Shirley and Cheryl's work will continue to inspire future volunteers for years to come. Madam Speaker, domestic violence affects us all and sadly, it still exists in communities across the United States. The care, compassion and commitment to ending domestic violence shown by devoted individuals like Shirley Coelho and Cheryl Nimiroski is truly exemplary. We should all be inspired by their invaluable work. I respectfully ask the entire U.S. House of Representatives to join me in commending Shirley Coelho and Cheryl Nimiroski for their years of service to New Hope and for their dedication to ending domestic violence.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of an incredible school, Venerini Academy, located in my district of Worcester, Massachusetts. The mission of the Venerini Sisters in Worcester celebrates its 100th anniversary this year, and I am proud to recognize its many contributions to the community over the last century. The school's and order's founder Rosa Venerini was born in Viterbo, Italy in 1656. She started the first public school for girls there, marking a milestone in the evolution of the education of women. Rosa knew the barriers women faced when life choices were limited often to marriage and the convent. Her father instilled in her a great respect for education and she wanted the same for future women. Rosa came to adopt the maxim, ``educate to liberate''. In 1713, Rosa opened a school in Rome and Pope Clement XI paid her the honor of a visit. The Pope stayed the whole morning in the school listening to the class of catechism and asking the students questions. At the end of the visit, he called Rosa and her companions; he thanked her for their precious work, and said to them: ``I desire that these schools spread to all of our cities.'' Within a short time the schools opened everywhere, teaching young women to read and other life skills such as sewing. By the time of her death in 1728, Rosa Venerini opened 40 schools across the world. In 1909, the movement she started came to the United States, establishing its first mission outside Italy on Edward Street in Worcester, Massachusetts. Venerini Academy's hallmarks of dedicated educators and rigorous programs would become a vital part of the community and a model for many other successful missions in countries across the globe. Madam Speaker, I am certain that the entire House of Representatives joins me in honoring and thanking the Venerini Sisters and the Venerini Academy for their contributions to our community and the education of our children, as well as expressing our hope and confidence in an even more accomplished second hundred years.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of Max and Marion Volterra of Attleboro, Massachusetts. Max and Marion Volterra are pillars of their community. Their dedication and service to the betterment of the city of Attleboro is inspiring. In acknowledgement of their many contributions to the good and welfare of their community, they have been selected to receive the United Regional Chamber of Commerce's ``2009 Persons of the Year'' award. Max Volterra has devoted the better part of his life to ensure the success and prosperity of the city of Attleboro. He served as a City Councilor and as City Solicitor prior to launching a successful campaign for State Representative. He then represented the city of Attleboro in the State Legislature until he was tapped to serve as Chief Legal Counsel to Governor Michael Dukakis in 1978. Leaving state politics to return to his law practice in Attleboro, Max focused his attention on bringing a formerly vital and prosperous downtown back to life. He personally invested in the downtown by purchasing a vacant train station and converting it to office space for his law firm and other offices. He was one of the founding members of an organization called Friends of Attleboro Interested in Revitalization and served as a member and past chairman of the Attleboro Redevelopment Authority that was responsible for several successful economic development projects. He volunteered countless hours for the purpose of ensuring that Attleboro would once again become a vibrant place to work and raise a family. Marion Volterra's many accomplishments parallel those of her husband. She embodies the concept that a truly successful community must provide opportunities for people of all ages and ethnicities to experience art and culture in order to produce well-rounded citizens. Marion has volunteered with the Attleboro Arts Museum for so many years that no one has any idea how long it has actually been. With her support and guidance, the museum has become an oasis in the center of the city, welcoming all to participate in its educational and cultural opportunities. In her spare time, Marion volunteers as a mentor to students at Attleboro High School and serves on the Board of Directors of the YMCA. Together Max and Marion Volterra accomplish far more than the sum of their individual efforts, and do so with enthusiasm and dedication. In tribute to their outstanding service to the city of Attleboro, I congratulate Max and Marion Volterra on receiving this award. I know all my colleagues will join me in paying tribute to them today.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the passing of a Great American, Eunice Kennedy Shriver. Her life and her times were a lesson to us all about a life well lived. From mother to matriarch, hers was a life of love, nurturing and giving. The creator of the Special Olympics. A woman who led by example, and of great faith, who ever throughout her lifetime, asked the question, ``Have you done enough?'' I ask that this poem penned by Albert Caswell in honor of her be placed in the Record. But, Have We Done Enough? Sunrise, Sunset . . . All in these, the days of our lives that we have left! All in these the moments, that which so race . . . of which lie before us in our life's face . . . Only, so much time to find . . . all in one's lifetime, that which our world to grace! To give to this our world, all in what we have done . . . To make our lives burn bright, burn bright like the morning sun! To ask that question, ``have we done enough?'' A Mother, A Wife, A Sister, A Matriarch . . . A Champion for others, as was Eunice's most splendid part! For she was such a woman of faith! Such a woman of heart! As to all of these, Eunice could not so give enough, her art! As to all she so asked as such! But, have you done enough? As a Champion For Children, as her heart was so filled in! Creating The Special Olympics, a work of art to help all hearts mend! For from a beautiful Rose, once came a flower so beautiful to help hearts win . . . So bright, a giver of light . . . a true lover of life! As above great American Women she so towers, as we look back upon her hours . . . For she never asked more, than what she was willing to give herself . . . For in all hearts, she always saw good . . . as how a life should be lived as felt! As someone, who so came from such heartache and pain . . . And yet, somehow in her fine heart . . . Her Profiles In Courage . . . still remained! Showing us all, her light! But, have we done enough? To make our world burn bright? To Heaven now our sweet child, rise . . . looking into our Lord's eyes . . . But, have we done enough?