Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Chairman, has my colleague used up all his time?

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, a cosponsor of this amendment, Mr. Sestak.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would just simply respond to the gentleman by saying we have proposed many meaningful measures to try to deal with not only the current energy prices but also to come up with a long-term plan so that we are not so reliant on foreign oil. Unfortunately, it's difficult to get things done with Republican obstructionism and a President who vetoes everything. Any good idea to invest more in renewable clean alternative energy sources, to further develop second or third generation biofuels, this President objects to. The only thing he likes is if we give more to the oil companies. We had the Dick Cheney ``secret energy task force,'' which we don't know all the details because the public was denied access to this information. But we do know this, that the outcome of that was more of the same. More drilling, more drilling, more reliance on oil, more reliance on oil. The same old, same old. We are done with that. We are done with that. I should remind everybody that when George Bush became President, a gallon of gasoline was $1.47. Now it's in excess of $3.79. In some places, over $4. So that is what has resulted from their policies and their obstructionism. As I said before, and I will say it again, the good news is the American people get it. They are tired of it. That is why we are seeing in hard-core Republican congressional districts Democratic victories. Things are changing. I reserve my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert in the Record a statement by Robert Greenstein, the Executive Director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The statement calls the claims by my friends on the Republican side that somehow this is a tax increase in this bill, he exposes it as being inaccurate. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Washington, DC, May 20, 2008. Statement By Robert Greenstein, Executive Director, on Misleading Claims That Congressional Budget Plan Calls for ``Largest Tax Increase in History'' Some claim that the budget plan of the conferees--which the House and Senate are scheduled to consider this week--would constitute ``the largest tax increase in history.'' This claim is inaccurate, just as the same claim was inaccurate with regard to the budget resolution that Congress adopted last year. This year's budget plan does not include a tax increase. It actually calls for a $340 billion reduction in revenues, reflecting its assumption that Congress will extend some parts of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts without offsetting the costs. The charge that the conferees' plan includes a large tax increase arises not from any policy changes that the plan proposes, but instead from policies enacted in 2001 and 2003. Those policies put in place tax cuts that President Bush proposed, but also provided for those tax cuts to expire at the end of 2010. The budget plan assumes that Congress will amend current law to extend some of the expiring tax cuts (especially those affecting middle-class families) and make other changes in tax policy, but it also assumes Congress will partly offset the cost of such changes. The plan does not assume that Congress will increase total revenues above what the federal government expects to collect under current policies--to the contrary, it assumes Congress will reduce total revenues below what is expected under current policies. The President's tax cuts expire in 2010 because their supporters deliberately designed them that way, in order to fit the tax cuts within the cost constraints imposed by the budget resolutions that Congress adopted in 2001 and 2003. While acknowledging that their real goal was to make the tax cuts permanent, supporters of those measures opted to ``sunset'' the tax cuts before the end of the ten-year budget window, partly to avoid recognizing the cost of permanent tax cuts. Now, a few years from the tax cuts' expiration, some of these same supporters are acting as though the tax cuts are already permanent and that any proposal to offset any portion of the cost of extending them is a ``tax increase.'' To extend the tax cuts without paying for them--and to attack those who simply seek to require that Congress at least partially pay for any extension of the tax cuts-- further heightens the irresponsible fiscal nature of the original actions. Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that George Bush and the previous Republican Congresses have created a mess. We are faced with the largest deficits and debt in the history of our country, thanks to their fiscally irresponsible policies. We have more people in this country who are in poverty because of their policies of neglect. We have more people in this country who are hungry because of their policies of neglect. Our veterans are finally, at long last, because of Democratic policies, getting the benefits and the funding that they have earned. But for years, because of Republican policies and because of the misplaced priorities of this White House, they have been short- changed. We have more people without jobs today because of their neglectful policies. Our infrastructure is falling apart. I come from Massachusetts. We have an aging infrastructure. We have bridges in my State that are older than some of the other States in this country, and the Federal response has been to provide less and less and less funding. The infrastructure is crumbling. It's a danger to people. But those burdens, the cost burden has fallen on the States and our local communities. So I can go on and on about their policies, which have literally created a mess, including these high gas and oil prices that we are paying right now because they didn't think it was important to invest in alternative renewable clean energy sources. So here we are, and thankfully, Mr. Speaker, thankfully, the American people get it, as we have seen in the recent elections where, in traditional hard-core Republican areas of this country, voters have said, Enough. We have had enough. And they have voted for Democrats. Mr. Speaker, one of the things about this budget that we are talking about here today is that it rejects the President's harmful cuts in a number of programs that people in this country think are valuable. This conference agreement on the budget rejects the President's deep cuts affecting a wide range of services and constituencies, including $479 billion of Medicare cuts and $94 billion to cuts in Medicaid over 10 years. That was the Presidents' priorities. That was the Republican's priorities. This budget, the Democratic budget, rejects those cuts. It also rejects more than $18 billion over 5 years in new fees for veterans and military retirees. How in good conscience could anybody propose that, given the fact that our men and women are serving with such great distinction in Afghanistan and Iraq. They deserve better than more fees. This budget also rejects cuts to services that help our communities, including the community development block grant and the low-income home energy assistance program, which is so important in the Northeast and in other parts of this country. This budget, the Democratic budget, rejects the President's call for the elimination of several State and local law enforcement programs, including the State criminal alien assistance program, Byrne Grants, and the COPS program. This Democratic budget also says no to the President's cuts to EPA grants that help protect public health and maintain environmental quality. So we have different priorities as Democrats than the Republicans have put forward over the years. The budget that we are proposing strengthens our economy. It provides crucial funding for the Democratic Innovation Agenda and the America Competes Act to enhance our competitive edge. It increases funding for math and science education and research. We understand, Mr. Speaker, that it is important to invest in our educational institutions. It is important to invest in math, science, and engineering now so that we can be competitive in this global economy, so that we can be the place where the jobs of tomorrow locate. This budget that we are proposing, Mr. Speaker, increases funding for efficient and renewable energy programs. It rejects the President's cuts to research, as well as his proposed cuts to weatherization assistance for lower income families, and it invests in renewable clean energy alternatives. This budget invests in education, as I mentioned. It provides significantly more than the President proposed. And it invests in infrastructure, in our highways, water, and other infrastructure by providing sufficient funding in a reserve fund to facilitate new initiatives in a deficit-neutral manner. On a whole range of issues, Democrats have decided to chart a very different course than what the Republicans have proposed for the previous years. I am proud of the fact that we are moving this country in a different direction, and the sad part is that we have to dig ourselves out of this mess that they created. This is a budget that I think we can be proud of, and I would urge all my colleagues to support it. I reserve my time at this point.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support the budget. It is amusing to hear my friends on the Republican side try to offer solutions on how to deal with the energy crisis, when they created it. This is their responsibility. This is a direct result of their failed policies; not investing in clean, renewable alternative energy sources; not building the necessary infrastructure to cultivate these new forms of energy; not investing in second and third generation biofuels. Instead, their policies have been the same old, same old. My friend from Florida talks about ANWR. Boy, what a creative idea. Let's rely on the oil companies, the same companies that are gouging American taxpayers each and every day, making record profits. Let's do what they want us to do. Maybe the time has come to set a new direction. With regard to this budget, our budget I think represents responsible governing. Their budgets, when they could ever actually pass budgets-- and, by the way, when they were in charge they very rarely did; they especially couldn't muster votes during an election year--represent what I believe is irresponsible governing. They spent a ton of money. They spent too much money, by the way, on oil company subsidies and tax breaks, more and more to the oil companies. They spent too much on the wealthiest Americans, who didn't need any help, who weren't struggling. They spent too much on a misguided war in Iraq that we should never have fought to begin with. And they paid for all of this by passing the costs on to future generations by borrowing from other countries. We are more in debt because of their leadership to China and to India and to other countries. Enough is enough. Again, that is why you are seeing in these hard- core Republican congressional districts Democrats winning, because the American people, Democrats and Republicans and independents, have had it with the Republican priorities. Let me just close by reminding my colleagues that within this budget there are important investments, smart energy investments. This conference agreement on the budget provides $7.7 billion in funding for renewable energy, energy efficiency and other energy programs, which is, by the way, $2.8 billion more than the 2008 level. This budget, this Democratic budget, rejects President Bush's budget cuts to energy efficiency and renewable energy programs, including his proposed cuts to the solar energy program, and we reject his suggestion that we terminate the weatherization assistance program. Boy, talk about going in the wrong direction. This budget, Mr. Speaker, invests $2 billion to create ``green collar'' jobs in our Nation's communities, because Democrats understand that not only do we need to be better stewards of our environment and become energy independent, but we also realize that there is the potential to create countless jobs in the area of environmental technologies. And this budget, Mr. Speaker, also includes a deficit neutral reserve fund to accommodate legislation that provides tax incentives for renewable energy or energy efficiency. This is a good budget. If you want to deal not only with the short- term issues involving energy, but the long-term issues, then this is the budget you should vote for. The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows: Amendment to H. Res. 1214 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida At the end of the resolution, add the following: Sec. 2. That upon adoption of this resolution the Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5984) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the limited continuation of clean energy production incentives and incentives to improve energy efficiency in order to prevent a downturn in these sectors that would result from a lapse in the tax law. The first reading of the bill shall he dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. After general debate the bill shall he considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. No amendment to the bill shall be in order except any amendment which the proponent asserts, if enacted, would have the effect of lowering the national average price per gallon of regular unleaded gasoline and diesel fuel by increasing the domestic supply of oil by permitting the extraction of oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Such amendments shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for thirty minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion or consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1214 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1214 provides for consideration of the conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 70, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2009. House resolution 1214 is a traditional conference report rule. It waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration and provides that the conference report shall be considered as read. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget. Mr. Speaker, budgets are moral documents. They are more than just an accounting of expenditures and revenue. They are statements of our national values and priorities. For too long Congress passed budgets with the wrong priorities. For too long the budget put the interests of the powerful before the needs of working families and those going through hard times. And for too long the budgets of the past pretended that people who were struggling didn't even exist, let alone matter. That has changed now. This Congress, the New Direction Congress, is saying that we value our families and their economic future. This Congress will fight to make sure that their hard work is rewarded and that the American Dream is renewed. This 5-year budget conference agreement charts a new way forward for the country. It makes investments in energy, education, and infrastructure. It provides tax relief for the middle class. It returns the budget to surplus in 2012 and 2013. And it remembers those whose service and sacrifice here at home and abroad provide the rest of us with security and peace of mind. Mr. Speaker, this is a budget with a conscience. Today, as we move to pass this conference agreement on the budget, our country faces major challenges: an economic recession, a crisis in the credit markets, a plunging housing market, rising unemployment, declining family income, skyrocketing costs in health care, aging infrastructure, and a safety net struggling to keep up with the growing number of Americans unable to meet their most basic needs. Faced with these challenges, President Bush and his Republican colleagues proposed the same tired, failed economic and fiscal policies. After 7 years the Bush legacy is the highest deficits in our Nation's history. The Bush legacy is the greatest national debt in our Nation's history. Future generations, our children and our grandchildren, will be forced to pay the price for this unprecedented rise in debt, a legacy of President George Bush and the Republicans' reckless and irresponsible policies. With this budget resolution, Mr. Speaker, the Democrats are ready to take the necessary steps, as difficult as they may be, to regain our economic health and reclaim our children's future. It is a balanced budget with balanced priorities. It returns the budget to balance with projected surpluses in 2012 and 2013 by adhering to fiscally responsible policies. It strengthens the U.S. economy over the long term while calling for funds to help Americans struggling in the current economic downturn. It rejects, and I repeat, it rejects the Republicans' harmful cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, the Community Development Block Grant program, and LIHEAP. And it protects priorities like SCHIP, infrastructure needs, homeland security, innovation, energy, education, health care, veterans, and the environment. This budget agreement does not include any tax increases, despite the overheated claims of the other side. Quite the contrary, it supports significant tax relief, including extension of marriage penalty relief, the child tax credit, the 10 percent bracket, and allowing for estate tax reform. It includes an additional year of relief for the alternative minimum tax that is fully paid for, Mr. Speaker. And it provides for property tax relief, energy and education tax relief, and extenders. Finally, this budget remembers those who serve at home and abroad. It provides strong and substantial funding for national defense, including quality of life for our troops and their families. It provides more funding for homeland security programs, including first responders, more than the President would. It provides for the care and treatment of all of our veterans but most especially our newest generation of veterans, those returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, many of whom are grievously wounded and thousands who will require treatment for posttraumatic stress and serious depression. Finally, Mr. Speaker, it rejects President Bush's cynical new fees for veterans health care. In short, Mr. Speaker, this budget charts a new direction for a stronger, safer, more compassionate America. Mr. Speaker, there are two significant differences between the House- and Senate-passed budgets which this conference report resolves. First were the reconciliation revisions to the alternative minimum tax. And the second is the level of nondefense discretionary funding. On reconciliation, the conference agreement drops the House-passed reconciliation instructions. Instead, it provides for 1 year of AMT relief that is fully paid for. The House will continue to work with the Senate to identify how to pay for permanent relief of the AMT. In the House such a solution is subject to our PAYGO rules of order and must be fully offset. With the passage of this conference report, any AMT fix offered in the Senate that increases the deficit by $10 billion in a year will also be subject to a Senate point of order. On nondefense discretionary spending, the difference between the House and Senate budgets was $3.6 billion, and the conference agreement splits the difference. By holding most nonsecurity spending to a modest 1 percent above inflation, we are able to move the budget out of deficit and into surplus by the year 2012 while still providing substantially greater investment in education, income security, veterans, and natural resources. I urge my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to adopt this rule and to approve the conference agreement on the fiscal year 2009 budget resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1214.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, before yielding to the next speaker, I would just respond by saying to my friends on the other side of the aisle, you have had your chance. You were in control of this institution for many years and you had a Republican President, and what you did was create a situation, the one we are in right now, where we have the largest debt in the history of the United States of America. The American people have rejected very clearly your policies and they are looking for a new direction, and that is what Democrats are going to offer. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, a member of the Budget Committee, Ms. Schwartz.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, every five seconds, a child dies from hunger-related causes. That's the equivalent of 21 school busses full of children being killed every day. With the current food crisis, even more people are being put at risk of starvation as the prices of daily food staples move out of reach. This is not just tragic; it is shameful. We have the resources necessary to end hunger. What we need is the political will to do so. Madam Speaker, I've never heard any Member of Congress declare that he or she is pro-hunger. But regrettably, too few are actively working to rid our Nation and the world of this terrible scourge. I am very proud of the members of the bipartisan House Hunger Caucus who have taken up the task of raising the profile of this domestic and global issue and helping to educate their colleagues about how we can address and end not just the crisis caused by rising food costs, but hunger itself. As the world faces a crisis of hunger, it is increasingly more important that Members of Congress speak out against hunger and take action to ensure that action is taken to truly address the crisis. Thank you to Yvette Clarke and Sheila Jackson-Lee for their leadership in organizing this Special Order Hour and for all those participating tonight. The time to end hunger is now. We cannot wait while more children and families go without food, or even starve to death. Tonight, in the aftermath of the earthquake in China and the cyclone in Burma, we hold the victims of these disasters in our thoughts. We see, once again, the generosity of the world in reaching out to these victims of natural catastrophe. But the children of Haiti, the urban poor of Manila, the refugees in Darfur--and, literally, the hundreds of millions of people around the world and in our own country who do not know whether there will be food on the table tonight or tomorrow--our thoughts and our prayers are with them, too. But more importantly, we send to them our commitment to take action on their behalf, and to take action in support of their own efforts to help themselves. Together we can overcome this current crisis, and together we can end hunger in our lifetime.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, 5 years ago in a well-orchestrated public relations stunt that featured landing on an aircraft carrier, President Bush proclaimed, ``In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.'' Just 2 weeks ago, on the fifth anniversary of ``Mission Accomplished,'' the White House could only express exasperation that anyone would even make a fuss that 5 years have gone by and we're still in Iraq, deeper than ever. Well, here's why people are making such a fuss, Madam Speaker: Over 4,000 American service men and women killed in Iraq; over 30,000 of our troops wounded or maimed; a continuing U.S. occupation of Iraq; and a mission that is never ending, never defined, and completely open-ended. Ironically, the USS Abraham Lincoln, the aircraft carrier where President Bush declared victory in Iraq, was just deployed last week for another tour of duty in the Persian Gulf. Today this House will have a choice to make, whether to continue this war well into next year. Today we will choose whether to support the George Bush strategy of keeping the war going until he can safely get out of town. Once again, U.S. forces are engaged in some of the most intense combat since the height of the insurgency. Once again, they are battling Iraqi militias, not al Qaeda, in the markets, homes and alleyways of Baghdad. April 2008 was the deadliest month for Iraqi civilians since last August. The U.N. now reports that 4.7 million Iraqis have been forced by violence to leave their homes. Roughly 2 million of them are refugees in neighboring countries. And another 2.7 million are internally displaced. What is worse, we don't even have the decency to pay for this war, which has created a mountain of debt that American taxpayers will be paying off for years to come. This generation's mistake is becoming the next generation's burden. Currently the war costs $2.4 billion each and every week. Reports estimate that the costs of this war, even if we could bring it to an end over the next 2 years, will exceed $3 trillion when we take into account rebuilding our broken military and addressing the needs of our military veterans. Billions for the care of the severely wounded. Billions for the care of veterans traumatized by war. Billions to staunch the flow of suicides by young men and women who have served in Iraq. And billions more to rebuild and re-equip our Armed Forces. Why can't the Iraqi Government, which is currently running a huge surplus, do more to rebuild their country? Madam Speaker, I am holding office hours across my congressional district in Massachusetts. These are mainly small towns and communities. Every weekend I meet a steady stream of constituents who come in and who want to talk about the war. People are so disappointed, so frustrated and so angry that this war is still going on. And it is not just Massachusetts. It is Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi and every other State in the Union. Now I know, Madam Speaker, that there will be opportunities today to support strong conditions on the war and the redeployment of our troops. We will have the opportunity to vote in support of greatly expanded educational benefits for our military veterans and for a generous response to the emergency global food crisis. And I thank Chairman Obey for those initiatives. But Madam Speaker, I cannot vote for one more dime for this war. Enough is enough. Before he leaves town, George Bush should bring our troops home.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a wonderful Massachusetts resident, Dr. Odete Amarelo, on the occasion of her retirement. Maria Odete Cordeiro Morgado Amarelo was born in Arrifes, Rua da Saude, in the Azores. After a visit from Cardinal Humberto de Sousa Medeiros that served as a great inspiration, her family made the decision to make a new life in the United States. Dr. Odete used her great energy, drive and passion to help others. She enrolled in a night program at Bristol Community College, eventually transferring to the University of Massachusetts. Two years later, she was hired by the Fall River School Department as a Teacher Assistant in the bilingual program. She later earned a BA from the University of Boston, a Master's Degree from Lesley College and a Doctorate Degree in Literacy from the Union Institute. Madam Speaker, that final degree I mentioned, a Doctorate in Literacy, says it all. Dr. Odete believes that education based upon literacy is a fundamental right. This has been her life's work, and her life's passion. As Dr. Odete has said, ``literacy can't exist in an isolated form, it's a process that is a part of our continued development.'' Currently, Dr. Odete serves as the School/Parent coordinator for the Magnet Program in the Fall River Schools. I am proud to rise today in honoring Dr. Odete Amarelo and to thank her for her extraordinary work on behalf of the people of Fall River. Dr. Odete once said, ``it's not sufficient to say that we care, but to act and identify what is not right.'' Dr. Odete has been acting and identifying--and fixing--what is not right for many, many years. I know that my colleagues in the House join me in paying tribute to this remarkable woman.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his work on this bill. Mr. Speaker, from my point of view the farm bill conference report is a mixed bag. There are many things in this farm bill that I don't like. I don't like what I consider to be an extravagant disaster assistance program. I don't like the minuscule cuts to direct payments, and I don't like the unnecessary subsidies. And I don't like the fact that this bill reduces the mandatory funding for the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition program by $756 million. This is a program that is close to my heart, Mr. Speaker, a program that is proven to work. Named after George McGovern and Bob Dole, this program feeds hungry children around the world in a school setting. The only thing crueler than not feeding a hungry child is to feed that child for a while and then stop. And that's what has happened, unfortunately, in this process and it's flat wrong. I would like to insert a recently published Washington Post Op-Ed written by both Senators McGovern and Dole into the Congressional Record at the end of my statement. Let me be clear, this is not the end of our fight for funds for McGovern-Dole. And I look forward to working with the appropriators and the authorizers to ensure that there is proper funding for this program in the upcoming appropriations bill. I believe it is a moral imperative. Mr. Speaker, this is not the bill that I would have written. And, Mr. Speaker, I suppose that I could find enough reasons to justify a vote against this conference report. But when I look at the whole bill, I have concluded that a ``no'' vote is the wrong vote to take today. And let me explain why I will vote for this bill today. Thanks to the leadership of Speaker Pelosi and Congresswoman DeLauro and Chairman Peterson, this bill includes the most sweeping expansion in the domestic anti-hunger safety net ever. This bill will do more to fight hunger in America over the next 5 years than anything Congress has done in decades. Over $10 billion will go to improve the food stamp benefit, to provide fresh fruits and vegetables to children in schools around this country, and to invest in America's food banks. Over 73 percent of the spending in this bill will fund the anti- hunger safety net. Damage that has been done over the years, the erosion of both the food stamp benefit and the emergency food assistance system, for example, is fixed in this bill. Mr. Speaker, the nutrition title of the farm bill is not perfect, but it is very, very good. I'm voting for this bill on the strength of these improvements, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the same. These enhancements will improve the lives of real people around the country, people who desperately need help putting food on their tables in this time of spiking energy costs and rising food prices. This bill will help more than 10 million people afford an adequate diet, including over 200,000 people in my home State of Massachusetts. Unfortunately, though, it will not end hunger in America, and it won't end hunger around the world. Mr. Speaker, I believe strongly that hunger is a political condition. And I believe we can end hunger here at home and around the world if we find the political will to do so. But ending hunger will take leadership, leadership to stand up to the powerful special interests that don't care about ending hunger, leadership to stand up for the people whose interests aren't always represented here in the halls of Congress, leadership to simply do the right thing. And ending hunger is doing the right thing. The face of hunger here in America is not one of sunken eyes and swollen bellies. No, the hungry in America are our neighbors, our children's classmates, and the seniors we see every day. Some serve in the military, and others take their kids to soccer and baseball practice all over this country. The face of hunger is the face of too many in America, but that doesn't have to be the case any longer. This bill, the effort put forth by the anti-hunger community, that deserves such great credit, and by many Members of Congress is just a start. With a continued and dedicated effort, this can truly be the beginning of the end of hunger. This bill is a solid down payment on our efforts to end the scourge of hunger in America once and for all, and for that reason alone it deserves our support. [From the Washington Post, May 6, 2008] A Slap at Schoolchildren (By George McGovern and Bob Dole) How can the world's hungriest schoolchildren be denied meals while the farm bill being debated in a House-Senate conference provides millions in subsidies for wealthy farmers? That's what Congress proposes. In all fairness, it should not become law. We are puzzled that Congress wants to increase overall farm bill spending by billions of dollars yet reduce by more than 90 percent the mandatory funding to feed hungry children. The program at issue saves lives and has a proven ability to break the cycle of poverty and hopelessness in poor countries. We are not expressing disagreement because the program, supported by Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, bears our names. We believe, simply put, that a costly humanitarian mistake would be made. Funding for the program would go from $840 million over five years to $60 million this coming year. After that, there would be no guarantee of funding at all. The $840 million in funding represents less than 1 percent of the proposed total spending in the farm bill. At a time when increasingly high food prices are pushing millions of families around the globe deeper into poverty, we must step up, not reduce, our efforts to feed hungry schoolchildren. For just a few cents a day per child, the McGovern-Dole Program has made a critical difference in the lives of children and communities worldwide, promoted American values in the most positive terms, and helped achieve U.S. foreign policy and national security goals. By providing meals to children who attend school in the poorest countries, the program increases attendance rates and student productivity and gives hope to a new generation of impoverished children around the world. The impact on young girls is particularly important. As their school attendance increases, they marry later and birthrates are reduced. During our careers in public service, we were honored to assist U.S. efforts to reduce hunger at home and abroad. Americans should be proud of the bipartisan progress our country has made. As a nation, we must not retreat from the compassion we've shown when the world's poorest children needed us most. We respectfully ask farm bill conferees to restore the $840 million in mandatory funding for the McGovern-Dole Program. Our nation must not turn its back on the world's poorest. On the contrary, we must demonstrate again that the United States will continue to be a nation of compassion. As former senators, we both know how difficult it is to put together and pass sound farm legislation. We also know, as does every member of Congress, how important it is to help take care of the world's neediest and most vulnerable children. We believe that a vast majority of the proposed farm bill beneficiaries share our view. Americans care and will respond positively if this needed change is made. George McGovern, a Democrat, was appointed a U.N. global ambassador on world hunger in 2001. Bob Dole, a Republican, is a former Senate majority leader.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the Record.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 1190 provides for the adoption of the Senate budget resolution, S. Con. Res. 70, with an amendment consisting of the House-passed budget resolution, H. Con. Res. 312. It also provides that the House request a conference with the Senate. This rule simply allows the House to move quickly and efficiently to a conference on the budget resolution. Let me be clear, the minority still has the right to offer a motion to instruct conferees, and they still have the ability to defeat this rule, denying the opportunity to begin a conference on the budget resolution. It's a simple and straightforward rule that allows the House to do what the American people sent us here to do, legislate. The American people don't want the partisan infighting that is being perpetrated by the minority in this Chamber. Time after time the American people have spoken, and their voices are being heard loud and clear. They want action, not disruption. They want us to do our job. And this rule will allow us to do just that. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Thank you for inquiring. I'm it.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington, my very, very good friend, Mr. Hastings. All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. General Leave

Mr. McGOVERN. Thank you for yielding. We are debating this rule today to do the people's business, to expedite the process so we can move to a conference on the budget resolution.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate hearing from my very good friend from Washington State explain his rationale on various issues. But let me just say a couple of things. If we want to have a serious discussion about the cost of energy in this country, let's understand one thing. The Republicans had been in control of this Congress for 12 years and the Republicans have controlled the White House for nearly 8 years. When George Bush went into office on January 22, 2001, the cost of a gallon of gas was $1.47. As of last week, it was $3.61. It's gone up since last week, and part of that is because of the failed, the failed policies of this administration and the Republican Congress. Yesterday, thanks to the leadership of Speaker Pelosi, we voted on a bill to instruct the President not to continue putting oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. And guess what. President Bush said he's going to veto it. He's going to veto a measure that will bring down prices for oil and gas in the short term. That's where their priorities are. Siding with Big Oil against the consumer. So enough is enough. And I would say, Mr. Speaker, that what we're trying to do here today is expedite consideration of a budget resolution. After nearly 8 years, the Bush legacy is the highest deficits in our Nation's history. That is what he has left our children and our grandchildren, the greatest amount of national debt in our Nation's history. Future generations, our kids and our grandchildren, will be forced to pay the price for this unprecedented rise in debt and the Republicans' fiscally reckless and irresponsible policies. The budget resolution that Chairman Spratt, our leader here in the House, has fashioned and the one that he is going to conference with is a budget with a conscience. That's something we had not had when the Republicans were in control of this Congress. It is a budget that doesn't cut Medicare and doesn't cut Medicaid and doesn't cut the Community Development Block Grant program and doesn't cut LIHEAP. It is a budget that understands that average people have suffered under the 12 years that Republicans controlled this Congress and under the 8 years that George Bush has been in office. It is a budget that protects priorities like SCHIP, infrastructure needs, homeland security, innovation, energy, education, health care, veterans, and the environment. It protects middle class tax relief, including the alternative minimum tax, the child tax credit, and the marriage penalties. In short, what the Democrats are trying to do is get a budget passed that charts a new direction for a stronger, safer, more compassionate America, a direction very different from the one that this President and the previous Republican Congress has brought us down. Let me finally say, Mr. Speaker, this will be the first budget resolution conference report to be considered in an election year since Bill Clinton was in office. So for all the talk about process, the fact of the matter is we have a Congress, a Democratic Congress, that is actually committed to getting things done, including a budget resolution. And again, when we bring the budget resolution to the floor, it will be the first budget resolution conference report to be considered in an election year since Bill Clinton was in office. And that is something I think we all can be proud of and the American people can be proud of a finished product which will be a budget that will reflect their priorities. So, Mr. Speaker, I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule. The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is as follows: Amendment to H. Res. 1190 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington At the end of the resolution, add the following: Sec. 2. That upon adoption of this resolution the Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5984) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the limited continuation of clean energy production incentives and incentives to improve energy efficiency in order to prevent a downturn in these sectors that would result from a lapse in the tax law. The first reading of the bill shall he dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. No amendment to the bill shall be in order except any amendment which the proponent asserts, if enacted, would have the effect of lowering the national average price per gallon of regular unleaded gasoline and diesel fuel by increasing the domestic supply of oil by permitting the extraction of oil in the Outer Continental Shelf. Such amendments shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for thirty minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1190 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members may be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1157.