Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman 30 seconds.

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman for his comments. And I do think we have bested you in the area of responding to a need that, quite frankly, when your party was in control here, these areas were underfunded. And the deal, this is about school breakfasts and school lunches and after-school snacks for kids who otherwise wouldn't get it. That's what this is about. That's what we are debating here. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York, a member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Arcuri.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just clarify for the record, because I think maybe there is a difference here between what some of us are saying on this side of the aisle compared to what some of my friends are saying on the other side of the aisle. I don't believe a hungry child can wait. I don't believe we can put that problem off till next year or 5 years or 10 years down the road. And in fact, I would argue that investing and making sure that that child gets the proper nutrition and the proper food early on in their lifetime will probably save us a whole bunch of money in terms of health care costs and lost learning opportunities and so many other things that come as a result of people being hungry and not getting enough to eat. So we don't have time to wait. And one of the reasons we are trying to tackle health care, Mr. Speaker, is to try to get this deficit and this debt under control, something, by the way, that when Bill Clinton left office, he left historic surpluses. After a few years of my friends on the other side of the aisle, we have historic deficits, and now we're trying to dig ourselves out of this ditch. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut, the Chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Ms. DeLauro.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize my colleague and fellow Hunger Caucus co-Chair, Congressman John Boozman of Arkansas, for his leadership in the fight to end hunger. On Monday, Congressman Boozman hosted a hunger relief and nutrition roundtable to address hunger in his district, an issue that affects one in seven Arkansas residents. Joined by Dr. Janey Thornton, deputy under secretary of Agriculture for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services, this forum brought together local antihunger leaders to coordinate efforts and discuss innovative ways to eliminate hunger in Arkansas' Third Congressional District. Today, more American than ever struggle to put food on their tables. Hunger is getting worse here in America, and we should do more to combat it. I encourage my colleagues to follow Congressman Boozman's example and host forums to address the problem of hunger in their congressional districts. We owe it to our constituents to come together and to put an end to hunger in America once and for all. I would like to insert into the Record the following article from The Morning News: [From the Morning News] Lack of Transportation Worsens Hunger, Experts Say (By Doug Thompson) Rogers.--A full food bank does a hungry person no good if it's miles away and he cannot drive there, hunger experts agreed. Janey Thornton, deputy undersecretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, met Monday with directors of local food relief agencies and charities along with 3rd District Rep. John Boozman, R- Rogers. At least 50 people attended the forum at the Center for Nonprofits in Rogers. ``Do you have problems with `food deserts?' '' Thornton asked soon after the question and answer portion began. ``There are large areas across the country where people don't have a big chain store nearby for a variety of reasons.'' Attendees replied that poor people, particularly the elderly, lack transportation. They go to convenience stores that sell a few groceries. That's a trend nationwide, Thornton said. ``There's little or no fresh fruits and vegetables,'' at these small stores, Thornton said. ``They're also a whole lot more expensive. Milk and other basics can cost two times the amount that you'd find at a chain store.'' ``Transportation is a huge, huge problem among seniors,'' said Marge Wolf, director of the Northwest Arkansas Food Bank in Bethel Heights. Wolf added that a lack of basic cooking skills has also become a problem. ``Since the recession began, we're having more and more people who don't know how to cook,'' Wolf said. ``We have food at the bank where, if we give it to someone, they do not know how to cook it.'' That is a national trend also, Thornton said. Many could buy food that was at least partly prepared, requiring only heating or some simple preparation to eat when they were employed, she said. ``There are some food banks across the country that are installing kitchens to give basic cooking lessons,'' she said. It would also help if more people learned to garden, Thornton added. This skill is of great value to the poor, she said. Her home state of Kentucky has a program where seniors show students how to plant gardens in the spring, then tend the gardens while students are away during the summer. The food is harvested in the fall and served in school cafeterias, she said.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Thank you and I thank my colleague for arranging this Special Order to honor an incredible leader and an incredible friend, Ted Kennedy. You know, in the McGovern household in Worcester, Massachusetts, the Kennedy name has always been magic. Our family admired and respected President Kennedy. We all supported him, were committed to Robert Kennedy and the causes that he stood for, and we always felt it a very special privilege to be represented in Massachusetts by Ted Kennedy. You know, all of us, especially the Massachusetts delegation, already miss Senator Kennedy. We miss his humor, we miss his friendship, his advice, his leadership. I tell my colleagues from outside of Massachusetts that I'm proud to call myself a Ted Kennedy Democrat, and a Ted Kennedy Democrat is somebody who's a believer in dynamic and efficient, bold and effective government, somebody who believes it is important to stand up for human rights and for civil rights, and Senator Kennedy did so with incredible integrity and with incredible character. You know, I believe as has been said here that he is the greatest legislator in the history of the United States Senate. On health care, I mean every major piece of health care legislation that has been enacted into law has Ted Kennedy's fingerprints all over it. There are millions of children in America today who have health care because of Ted Kennedy. And education: Every major education bill to expand educational opportunities for people of every background is a result of Ted Kennedy's leadership. In the area of workers rights, a strong champion of organized labor, somebody who promoted and enacted major legislation that protected workers and workers rights. In the area of civil rights, you're going to hear from our colleague from Georgia, John Lewis, a hero in the civil rights movement who will talk to you about the fact that Ted Kennedy was the leader in the area of civil rights in the United States Senate. And on the Iraq War, I have a special admiration and respect for his courage, for the stand he took against that war, when it was not popular to do so, but he took that stand because he believed it was the right thing to do. He thought that war should always be a last resort, not a first resort, and I think he was right on that war. But to all of us in Massachusetts, he was our Senator who assembled the best staff you could possibly imagine. When somebody lost their Social Security check, they called Ted Kennedy in his office. When a veteran needed help, they called Ted Kennedy. When a local official needed funding for a local college or hospital or road project, they called Ted Kennedy's office. All phone calls were returned, whether it was from the Queen of England or Mrs. O'Leary who lived in a three- decker in Worcester. But more than that, I appreciate very much his personal touch. I was grateful for that personal touch, you know, the notes and the calls. When somebody was sick in your family, you got a phone call. When you got a special recognition or if you won an election, you got a note. If something great happened to you, you know, he was the first to call. When my son, Patrick, was born, the very first call we received was from Ted Kennedy, even before my mother and father called the hospital. The very first gift that we received was from Ted Kennedy, a blanket that had my son's name stitched into the blanket with the words, Love, Vicki and Ted. And the same thing happened when my daughter was born a couple of years later. Those are things that I will never forget and always treasure. You know, when he died, I said that nobody can ever fill his shoes, but we must try to follow in his footsteps, and I really believe that. You know, one of the things that Senator Kennedy said was that the great unfinished goal of his life was health care. He believed that everyone in this country deserves health care. He thought it was a national scandal that tens of millions of Americans are without health care. He believed that we could provide better health care to people, that we could put a greater emphasis on preventative care to prevent people from getting sick. He believed we could come up with a health care system that would control costs so that families and small businesses wouldn't go broke trying to provide health care for their families or for their workers. And so while he is no longer with us, we need to continue his work. He was the conscience of our country, and I believe that we need to continue to be inspired by his example. We need to continue to stand up for what's right. We need to continue to fight for what's right. And I will say as my colleagues have said, I feel it has been a special privilege and an honor for me to be part of this delegation that for so many years was led by Senator Kennedy, a great leader and a great friend. And the world is going to miss him. And I already do. I thank my colleague for yielding to me.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, President Obama will soon decide whether to significantly escalate the number of U.S. troops deployed to Afghanistan. I urge him to exercise extreme caution and not increase America's military footprint in Afghanistan. I was in Afghanistan right after the elections. Everyone admits there was massive fraud and that corruption is widespread in the government. Do we really expect to achieve long-term sustainable development in Afghanistan when the people have no confidence in their leaders? Can we develop and train a credible Afghanistan security force when many of its leaders are allied with warlords and drug lords? Last Friday, 57 bipartisan Members of Congress sent a letter to the President asking him not to increase the number of U.S. combat troops in Afghanistan in the absence of a well-defined military exit strategy. If we're going to send our men and women to fight and die in Afghanistan for a corrupt and fraudulent government, then at least tell us when they will be able to come home. Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, September 25, 2009. Hon. Barack Obama, President of the United States, The White House, 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, 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.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 772 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. General Leave I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous materials into the Record.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of the conference report on H.R. 2918, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act. I rise in strong support of the rule and of the underlying legislation. The bill before us today includes not only the fy 2010 Legislative Branch appropriations bill but, more importantly, a continuing resolution to keep the government operating for the next 6 weeks. With a few important exceptions, the continuing resolution provides level funding. In other words, the bill maintains funding levels passed at the 2009 appropriations process levels. One of those exceptions is in the vital area of veterans health care, which receives an increase in this bill. The VA estimates that it will treat more than 6.1 million patients in 2010, including more than 419,000 veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. That number represents an increase of 56,000 more patients than in 2009. To ensure that the VA can provide our veterans the care that they need and that they deserve, the bill increases the funding for VA health by $3.85 billion. I would encourage all Members on both sides of the aisle who wish to provide this needed increase in veterans health care to support the bill. To address the right-wing talk radio target of the week, no funds in this bill may be provided to ACORN or any of its affiliates, subsidiaries or allied organizations. In terms of process, Madam Speaker, none of us on either side of the aisle are happy with continuing resolutions. They have been used for years under Democratic and Republican majorities, but they are clearly not ideal. Here in the House, we have completed our work of passing all of the appropriations bills, and I want to commend Chairman Obey and his colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for their efforts and all of their hard work. Unfortunately, it seems that these days that you need 60 votes in the Senate to agree that the sun came up this morning. The Senate has not yet passed all of its bills, and this continuing resolution is necessary to ensure that vital programs continue to receive funding. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First of all, I don't think we need any lectures by Members of the other side about process. If I recall, when they were in charge here, continuing resolutions were a regular part of the process. If I recall correctly, their last year in power they did a short-term CR. That means they got nothing done and dumped all of their appropriations work on the incoming Democratic Congress, which was a daunting task, to deal with 2 years of appropriations. They had their chance, and I think that they messed it up. The fact is that the bill before us, the conference report before us, is the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill, which is an important appropriations bill. All appropriations bills are important. I don't think it does anybody any good to diminish the importance of this. This is important and it needs to be passed. I fully expect that the other appropriations bills will be conferenced, and we will be dealing with more and more conference reports in the coming weeks. But, look, what we need to do here, Madam Speaker, is not only pass a conference report for the Legislative Branch Appropriations, but we also need to pass a continuing resolution which includes an increase in veterans' health care. We have thousands and thousands of young men and women who we have sent to Iraq and who we have sent to Afghanistan. They deserve a first- class health care system when they return. All veterans do. They have served our country with great distinction. They not only deserve the best health care, but they have earned it. There is an increase in this CR for veterans' health.

Mr. McGOVERN. I'm happy to yield.

Mr. McGOVERN. I reclaim my time. I thank the gentleman for agreeing with me, and hopefully we will have a unanimous vote on this, because there should be no disagreement on that. Again, in this continuing resolution, I will repeat to my colleagues, there is an increase in funding for veterans' health. I think we should move forward. Get this conference report done. There will be more conference reports down the road. This is not an easy process. I think I've come to learn that the House of Representatives does not control the United States Senate. I wish we did. We would get a lot more done. But that's not the way our system works. At this time, Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from California.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, so nobody is confused here--and I appreciate the opinion of the gentleman from New York, but so nobody is confused here--the bill before us, there are no funds in this bill that may be provided to ACORN or any of its affiliates, subsidiaries, or allied organizations. None. We can talk about this all we want, but the facts are the facts, and there's no money in this bill for ACORN. The gentleman earlier talked about shutdowns of the process. What I recall is when the Republicans were in charge, they shut down the government in 1995. We all know the adverse impacts of that. For the record, I want to make clear to people that the Legislative Branch appropriation bill does not include Members' salaries. So this notion that we're somehow padding our pockets here is a little bit off the mark. The fact of the matter is, included in the Legislative Branch appropriation bill are moneys to help fund CBO so that it will be easier for Members to obtain PAYGO analyses of their proposals. We're all talking about the need to be more conscious of our debt and our deficit. That's one way to do it. The other thing is that in this bill is money to protect the people who come and visit the United States Capitol. In this conference report, there are moneys that ensure that the Capitol Complex is as secure and as safe as possible, providing a 7 percent increase in funding for the Capitol Police, covering all mandatory spending and maintaining FY09 force levels. The bottom line here is that the men and women who protect us in the Capitol Police deserve more gratitude than they're getting the way this Legislative Branch appropriation bill is being described. This is an important bill. All appropriations bills are important. We're going to hopefully pass all of our appropriations bills and not do what my friends on the other side did when they were in power, and that is just pass it off to another year. I think that we should move forward on this. Again, in the continuing resolution there is an increase in funding for veterans health care. I think that is important. We owe our veterans more, quite frankly, than we are giving them. I hope that all my colleagues will support not only the rule but the final passage of this conference report. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, the gentleman described this debate as fascinating. I would describe it as kind of bizarre. The Legislative Branch bill that President Clinton threatened to veto, if I remember correctly, the gentleman from California voted for. And I will stress again that there is no money in this bill for ACORN, none, or its affiliates or its subsidiaries. Huge majorities in both the House and the Senate are on record as opposing funding ACORN. This notion that somehow when the CR runs out that the money for ACORN is going to go up, I don't get that. There will either be another CR or we will have passed relevant appropriation bills that will continue the prohibition. So that is kind of a nutty debate, and it is not relevant to this bill because this bill bans Federal funding for ACORN. The other thing that I will say is that all appropriations bills are important, and we are going to get to all of them. But I think it is wrong to diminish the Legislative Branch appropriation bill, and I think it's wrong to kind of brush aside the importance of funding for the Capitol Police. We have had members of the Capitol Police lose their lives in the line of duty, protecting not only us but protecting our constituents who come here. They deserve to be supported, and they deserve to be thanked. This bill does that. Again, I will remind my colleagues that in the CR there is an increase in funding for veterans health. Now if you don't want to fund the Capitol Police and you don't want to increase funding for veterans health, then vote against the rule and vote against the final passage of the bill. But I think the vast majority of our constituents are saying, This is a no-brainer. Move this forward. Continue your business. Continue to work on the other appropriations bills, and get your work done. And we are going to do that. Let me finally say again in support of Chairman Obey and the members of the Appropriations Committee, they did all of their work in this House. Every single one of the appropriation bills has been passed. It is now up to the Senate to pass their bills, and then we will conference them and bring them back here for a final vote. Mr. Speaker, in a moment I will be offering an amendment to this rule, and I want to briefly explain the amendment. The amendment will provide for adoption of an enrollment resolution that corrects a technical error made by the Senate in the continuing resolution. After the Senate struck a section in the continuing resolution, internal cross-references in the conference report became incorrect. This mistake could block contracting authority for any surface transportation programs, a result that I am certain that no Member of this House, Republican or Democrat, would support. The enrollment resolution corrects the cross-references. I hope all my colleagues will vote ``yes'' on the amendment, the rule and the previous question. Amendment Offered by Mr. McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I have an amendment to the rule at the desk.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the amendment and on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Marlborough Regional Chamber of Commerce, MRCC, for their devotion to their community for 85 years. The MRCC is a not-for-profit organization that provides resources for businesses to help them develop and grow. Their continuing efforts have helped make Marlborough a better place to live, work and raise a family. The MRCC has continued to reach their goal of creating a better community with their strong leadership and dedication to the town. Throughout the years, the MRCC has presented gifts for the town, awarded scholarships for graduating high school seniors, and participated vigorously in public discussions about improvements to the city. Their successful events, such as the Heritage Festival and The Annual Steak and Lobster Cookout, have brought the community together. They bring great pride and joy to the town and get people involved. The Marlborough Regional Chamber of Commerce will celebrate its founding at an event being held September 25, 2009. The theme of the event is based on Marlborough's history in the shoe industry. Throughout the night, videos, vintage pictures and newspapers will be on display. Also during the event, several local businesses will be acknowledged for their support since the 1920s. Madam Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Marlborough Regional Chamber of Commerce for 85 years of service, and to wish them continued success.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, on Sunday, a historic event took place in Havana, Cuba. An estimated 1.2 million people attended an all-star concert made up of many of the top Latin pop, rock and salsa stars from Latin America, Europe, Puerto Rico and Cuba. The concert, known as Paz Sin Fronteras, or Peace Without Borders, was the dream of Colombian singer, songwriter and multiple Latin Grammy winner Juanes and his two primary collaborators Miguel Bose of Spain and Olga Tanon of Puerto Rico. The message of the Peace Without Border concerts is to circumvent politicians, and using the medium of music, speak directly to young people and encourage them to think in fresh ways--to change their way of thinking--and leave behind the old politics, the old hatreds, prejudices and national enmities that have locked too many people into patterns of conflict, violence, poverty and despair, dividing them from one another. It is an attempt to break down barriers and ask people to join in common purpose. Both the United States and Cuban governments helped facilitate the concert, including providing Juanes and his company of 15 international and Cuban artists full control over message and staging. The Departments of State, Treasury and Commerce, and especially Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, are to be commended for providing in record time the various licenses and authorities required for U.S. musicians, technicians, musical and production equipment to travel and enter Cuba. This is the second Peace Without Borders concert organized by Juanes in what he hopes will be a series of concerts in the hemisphere in places where people, if not politicians, might be open to a message of change, especially young people, who are more readily engaged by the language of rock-and-roll. The first such concert took place last year on the Peace Bridge on the border of Colombia and Venezuela when military tensions escalated between the two countries. I applaud Juanes and all the participating artists for their courage, their vision and commitment to working together to communicate directly to the Cuban people through the language of music. More than just a rock concert, this massive cultural event in Havana was a moving and emotional testament, even to many of its critics, about the power of the human spirit to reach across barriers during times of tension and opportunities. The ripples and waves created by this concert are just beginning to be felt in Cuba, the United States and throughout the hemisphere. I very much look forward to supporting other Paz Sin Fronteras initiatives in the future. Madam Speaker, I include the following materials for the Record. [From the Washington Post, Sept. 21, 2009] In Castro Country, Giving a Concert for Peace (By William Booth) Havana.--Rock-and-roll diplomacy came to the communist isle on a smoldering afternoon, as hundreds of thousands of Cubans filled the Plaza of the Revolution on Sunday and sang along to a dozen international musical acts led by the Colombian singer and peace activist Juanes. The free ``Peace without Borders'' concert was criticized by hard-line Cuban exiles in Miami as a propaganda coup for the Castro brothers, and that it might have been. But for thousands of young Cubans, it was a rare treat to hear a lineup of global Latin music stars, such as Olga Tanon of Puerto Rico and Miguel Bose of Spain. Under the watchful gaze of a huge mural of Ernesto ``Che'' Guevara, and beneath the socialist slogan ``Always Toward Victory!'' on the side of the Ministry of Interior building, there was no trouble from the mostly young crowd. Many were dressed in white, in keeping with the peaceful vibe. From the stage, framed by giant posters of a white dove, musicians offered hopeful but admittedly vague appeals for change, solidarity and, of course, peace. Bose told the crowd that ``the greatest dream we can live is to dream the dream of peace.'' He also announced that there were more than a million people in the square, though there were no official estimates. Tanon shouted that she brought greetings from Miami--home of many Cuban exiles who live in opposition to the Cuban government--and no one in the crowd booed, but instead whistled and cheered. The United States has pursued a policy of economic embargo and diplomatic freeze against Cuba for almost 50 years, hoping to topple the government, to no avail. Despite promises by President Obama, change in the U.S.-Cuba relationship has been slow in coming. In an interview aired Sunday on the Spanish-language network Univision, Obama acknowledged that the concert would only go so far. ``I certainly don't think it hurts U.S.-Cuban relations,'' he said. ``I wouldn't overstate the degree that it helps.'' The plaza is iconic as the scene of some of Fidel Castro's biggest rallies and longest speeches, though he has not been seen in public for almost three years, after intestinal surgery. Anti-Castro Cuban exiles in Miami have voiced heated opposition to the concert, saying it only served to support the government here, which would milk the event for publicity even as it imprisons hundreds of political dissidents. Because of his participation, Juanes has received death threats. But some of the pressure on him eased when, earlier this month, 24 of the 75 Cuban opposition leaders arrested in a 2003 crackdown on dissent signed a letter saying the show must go on. ``We came to Cuba with love. We have overcome fear to be with you, and we hope that you too can overcome it,'' Juanes told the masses. ``All the young people, from Miami in the United States and in all the cities, must understand the importance of turning hate into love.'' More than 100 buses could be counted bringing young people to the concert. ``This is the best concert to come to Cuba in, like, 50 years,'' said Yeilene Fernandez, a student at the University of Havana who was dancing with friends. Sitting in his hotel room on the eighth floor of the Hotel Nacional the night before the show, Juanes was typing out messages for his Twitter followers. He was wearing a silver crucifix, jeans and a T-shirt. ``It's important to do this. I know this in my heart,'' he said. ``Our region, Latin America, is very complicated right now. We're all going our separate ways because of our ideologies. It's time to change our minds, to do something beyond politics, for young people.'' Juanes had previously met with Obama administration officials, and being a 17-time Latin Grammy winner who has become a kind of roving diplomat in Latin America, he got to see Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. She gave her blessing to his participation in the concert. ``We asked what they thought, and they said, `Go ahead.' She was very positive,'' he said. ``Me, I am Colombian, so I didn't need to ask permission. But we did need permission for all our staff, and they said sure.'' Juanes said he asked some artists to come, ``but they were afraid. Latin artists, we live in Miami, and when you live in Miami, anything to do with Cuba is always a challenge. Some people in Miami are against anything to do with Cuba. Some are in the middle. And the young people, they definitely support cultural exchange.'' Next up in that exchange: The New York Philharmonic is coming to play a series of concerts at the Teatro Amadeo Roldan in Havana at the end of October. ``I see an increase in these cultural exchanges, and I think it's healthy, it's a step in the right direction,'' said Bill Richardson, governor of New Mexico, in an interview. He traveled this month to Cuba to discuss trade issues with the government. In Havana on Sunday, those who were not at the Plaza of the Revolution watched the concert on rickety old TV sets in airless living rooms--or sat in their front courtyards to catch the breeze and listened to the show on the radio. The artists performed free and covered the cost of shipping stage and sound equipment from Miami for the mega-concert. The Cuban government provided logistical and technical support. Juanes insisted that the signal from the show is free to use, download or broadcast anywhere in the world. Juanes performed his first ``Peace without Borders'' concert on the frontier between Colombia and Venezuela last year during a time of heightened animosity between the countries. He said he would like to perform a third peace concert at the border between El Paso and Ciudad Juarez, Mexico. A vicious battle between street dealers and drug cartels, fighting among themselves and against federal troops, has left more than 1,600 people dead this year, making Juarez the most violent city in the world. Juanes said: ``I am from Colombia. I have no idea what it means to live in peace.''

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I rise to express my strong concern over U.S. policy in Afghanistan. I worry that we are getting sucked deeper and deeper into a war with no end. Our mission continues to grow and grow, with no clear sense of where we are ultimately going. It has been 8 long years. We have lost too many brave men and women, and we have spent billions and billions of dollars. The Government of Afghanistan, led by President Hamid Karzai, is incompetent and corrupt. The Afghan president has formed alliances with warlords and drug-lords who have no interest in a better Afghanistan. His military is not reliable and his police are a mess. By all accounts, forces close to Mr. Karzai stuffed ballot boxes in the most recent elections. Madam Speaker, if this fraud had occurred in virtually every other country in the world, the condemnations from Congress and the administration would be loud and forceful. After all the sacrifices our troops have made, after all the financial and development assistance, after all the training and military aid, is this the best that we can expect? Don't we deserve better? Don't the Afghan people deserve better? At a very minimum, we must insist that any aid be contingent on a responsible Afghan government. Without that, then all our investments and good intentions could achieve very little that is sustainable. The United States has an incredible and magnificent team assembled in Afghanistan. I had the pleasure of meeting many of them during a brief visit to the country over the recess. Both the military and State Department personnel are impressive. I only wish they were in place 8 years ago. But even a brilliant team can't make up for the inadequacies of the current Afghan government. Our troops are exceptional. I had the privilege of eating dinner with many of them from Massachusetts. I am in awe of their courage and commitment and their patriotism. We owe them a policy that is worthy of their sacrifice. Everyone, Madam Speaker, from the President on down, agrees that a political solution is the only path for a successful, stable Afghanistan. During consideration of the Department of Defense authorization bill a few months ago, I, along with my colleague, Walter Jones, offered an amendment that would have simply required the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress by the end of the year what our exit strategy for Afghanistan was. We are not asking for a date certain, we are not advocating an immediate withdrawal, but we wanted an answer to this fundamental question: At what point has our military contribution to the political solution in Afghanistan come to an end so that we can bring our troops home? I don't believe that the United States should enter into a war without a clearly defined mission, and that means a mission with a beginning, a middle, a transition period and an end. Without that definition and clarity, we will continue to drift from year to year, from administration to administration. Madam Speaker, we need an exit strategy for Afghanistan. I believe that sending thousands more American troops into Afghanistan, as some in the administration appear to be urging, is a mistake. An escalation of U.S. military forces would further create the impression of an occupation and, in turn, provide a powerful rallying point for those we are trying to defeat. In last Sunday's New York Times, Nicholas Kristoff cites a statement by many former U.S. intelligence officials warning that the more troops we put in, the greater the opposition. Madam Speaker, I am not suggesting that we walk away from Afghanistan. We, along with the international community, should help with development aid, investments in education, school feeding, training of their police and military and help with strengthening their civilian institutions. I also understand the threat from al Qaeda. I still strongly believe that we should hold those responsible for September 11, the attacks of September 11, accountable; and we should be committed to defeating them. I voted for the authorization to use military force after the terrorist attacks. But, Madam Speaker, al Qaeda is more of a problem in Pakistan than in Afghanistan. And for those who justify our expanded military presence in Afghanistan as a way to prevent al Qaeda from ever coming back and establishing a safe haven, I would ask, are we going to send more troops to Somalia and Sudan and other countries that have provided safe havens for al Qaeda in the past? Madam Speaker, there are no easy answers in Afghanistan. It is a complicated place, from its people to its geography. I don't pretend to have all the answers. But I do feel deeply that an escalation of American military forces there would be a mistake and would not solve the many problems and challenges of that country. I fear it would only further complicate matters at a very high cost to our troops and our country. [From the New York Times, Sept. 6, 2009] The Afghanistan Abyss (By Nicholas D. Kristof) President Obama has already dispatched an additional 21,000 American troops to Afghanistan and soon will decide whether to send thousands more. That would be a fateful decision for his presidency, and a group of former intelligence officials and other experts is now reluctantly going pubic to warn that more troops would be a historic mistake. The group's concern--dead right, in my view--is that sending more American troops into ethnic Pashtun areas in the Afghan south may only galvanize local people to back the Taliban in repelling the infidels. ``Our policy makers do not understand that the very presence of our forces in the Pashtun areas is the problem,'' the group said in a statement to me. ``The more troops we put in, the greater the opposition. We do not mitigate the opposition by increasing troop levels, but rather we increase the opposition and prove to the Pashtuns that the Taliban are correct. ``The basic ignorance by our leadership is going to cause the deaths of many fine American troops with no positive outcome,'' the statement said. The group includes Howard Hart, a former Central Intelligence Agency station chief in Pakistan; David Miller, a former ambassador and National Security Council official; William J. Olson, a counterinsurgency scholar at the National Defense University; and another C.I.A. veteran who does not want his name published but who spent 12 years in the region, was station chief in Kabul at the time the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979, and later headed the C.I.A.'s Counterterrorism Center. ``We share a concern that the country is driving over a cliff,'' Mr. Miller said. Mr. Hart, who helped organize the anti-Soviet insurgency in the 1980s, cautions that Americans just don't understand the toughness, determination and fighting skills of the Pashtun tribes. He adds that if the U.S. escalates the war, the result will be radicalization of Pashtuns in Pakistan and further instability there--possibly even the collapse of Pakistan. These experts are not people who crave publicity; I had to persuade them to go public with their concerns. And their views are widely shared among others who also know Afghanistan well. ``We've bitten off more than we can chew; we're setting ourselves up for failure,'' said Rory Stewart, a former British diplomat who teaches at Harvard when he is not running a large aid program in Afghanistan. Mr. Stewart describes the American military strategy in Afghanistan as ``nonsense.'' I'm writing about these concerns because I share them. I'm also troubled because officials in Washington seem to make decisions based on a simplistic caricature of the Taliban that doesn't match what I've found in my reporting trips to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Among the Pashtuns, the population is not neatly divisible into ``Taliban'' or ``non-Taliban.'' Rather, the Pashtuns are torn by complex aspirations and fears. Many Pashtuns I've interviewed are appalled by the Taliban's periodic brutality and think they are too extreme; they think they're a little nuts. But these Pashtuns also admire the Taliban's personal honesty and religious piety, a contrast to the corruption of so many officials around President Hamid Karzai. Some Taliban are hard-core ideologues, but many join the fight because friends or elders suggest it, because they are avenging the deaths of relatives in previous fighting, because it's a way to earn money, or because they want to expel the infidels from their land--particularly because the foreigners haven't brought the roads, bridges and irrigation projects that had been anticipated. Frankly, if a bunch of foreign Muslim troops in turbans showed up in my hometown in rural Oregon, searching our homes without bringing any obvious benefit, then we might all take to the hills with our deer rifles as well. In fairness, the American military has hugely improved its sensitivity, and some commanders in the field have been superb in building trust with Afghans. That works. But all commanders can't be superb, and over all, our increased presence makes Pashtuns more likely to see us as alien occupiers. That may be why the troop increase this year hasn't calmed things. Instead, 2009 is already the bloodiest year for American troops in Afghanistan--with four months left to go. The solution is neither to pull out of Afghanistan nor to double down. Rather, we need to continue our presence with a lighter military footprint, limited to training the Afghan forces and helping them hold major cities, and ensuring that Al Qaeda does not regroup. We must also invest more in education and agriculture development, for that is a way over time to peel Pashtuns away from the Taliban. This would be a muddled, imperfect strategy with frustratingly modest goals, but it would be sustainable politically and militarily. And it does not require heavy investments of American and Afghan blood.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, it was with deep sorrow and shock that I learned of the death of Mr. Ken Bacon, President of Refugees International. Ken was a great man, who accomplished so much in his lifetime, both inside and outside the U.S. government. His wit, focus, passion and vision will be sorely missed by me and everyone who knew him. One of the first actions I did with Ken in his capacity as the new president of Refugees International was an event in 2001 on the need to ban anti-personnel landmines. His background and experience at the Pentagon made Ken an especially authoritative voice in support of the international treaty to ban landmines and on the horror and humanitarian consequences of landmines. I found him inspiring and energizing. In the years to come, we would work together on issues ranging from internally displaced people in Colombia, to the tragedy of Darfur, and the need to ban the use of cluster munitions. I last saw Ken at a breakfast on Capitol Hill on June 17th, where we had a chance to join forces once again to talk about the special needs of displaced women and girls. Ken Bacon helped strengthen and revitalize Refugees International into one of the most internationally recognized voices and advocates on behalf of refugees and the internally displaced. And like all his friends, family and colleagues, I pledge to carry on his work as if he were still right by my side. I would like to insert into the Record the statement on the death of Ken Bacon by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton; the August 16th obituary in the New York Times; and the August 15th tribute posted by Refugees International on its web site. Death of Ken Bacon, President of Refugees International (Hillary Rodham Clinton, Aug. 15, 2009) The United States and the world lost a great humanitarian leader with the passing today of Ken Bacon, President of Refugees International. Most Americans remember Ken as the unflappable civilian voice of the Department of Defense, where he served with distinction as spokesperson for many years. But for millions of the world's most vulnerable people--refugees and other victims of conflict--Ken was an invaluable source of hope, inspiration and support. From Central Africa to South Asia to the Americas, Ken shone the spotlight on the causes of humanitarian suffering, and served as an impassioned yet reasoned advocate for the principles of humanitarian protection and assistance. We will miss Ken, but we will be inspired by the contributions he has made and the example he has set.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. We have no further speakers at this time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 697 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 697 provides for the consideration of H.R. 3269, the Corporate and Financial Institution Compensation Fairness Act of 2009, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate controlled by the Committee on Financial Services. The rule makes in order an amendment by Chairman Frank, which is debatable for 10 minutes. It also makes in order an amendment in the nature of a substitute by Representative Garrett, which is debatable for 30 minutes. The rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3269, the Corporate and Financial Institution Compensation Fairness Act. I would like to congratulate my good friend and my colleague from Massachusetts, Chairman Barney Frank, for all of his hard work on this bill. Mr. Speaker, if the last year has taught us anything, it's that the compensation practices of some of our largest corporations have gotten completely out of control. Middle class Americans on Main Street are struggling to hold on to their jobs, struggling to pay for health care and education and food and energy. They have seen their wages stagnate while their costs have skyrocketed. Meanwhile, over on Easy Street, things are great. Corporate executives are continuing to give themselves multi-million dollar pay packages; the golden parachutes are still flying. One of the most egregious cases of this came when American taxpayers watched as AIG, the American International Group, doled out lavish bonuses after being bailed out of the financial mess that they helped create. Chairman Frank is thoroughly committed to ensuring our financial system remains sound, and I am pleased to see this bill as the first piece of larger reforms by the House Financial Services Committee. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to voice my support for the proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency. I know there has been strong pushback from the industry, but I would like to commend my colleagues for their perseverance in putting these protections in place. The bill will help to give the owners of these corporations, the shareholders, a meaningful voice in how companies are run. Specifically, this bill grants shareholders a say on pay for top executives by guaranteeing them a non-binding advisory vote on their company's pay practices. Again this vote is nonbinding. The board of directors and the compensation committees are free to ignore their shareholders' wishes, but those shareholders will at least have the opportunity to express their views. The bill would also strengthen the ability of Federal regulators, namely, the Federal Reserve and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, to restrict pay structures that encourage inappropriate risk at financial companies. If regulators see a large company driving itself off a cliff by employing unstable pay practices for top executives, they should have the ability to act. I'm pleased that the Financial Services Committee adopted a number of amendments. To note one in particular, Mr. Hensarling, my Republican colleague from Texas, recognized the need to take the size of the institution into account. His amendment to exempt financial institutions with assets of less than $1 billion from the bill's incentive base compensation disclosure requirements and related compensation structure oversight was adopted in committee. I look forward to the debate on this bill and on the Republican substitute which is made in order under this rule. I urge my colleagues to send a strong message that the misbehavior in corporate America must come to an end by supporting this bill. I reserve my time.