Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

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, let me remind my colleagues that the underlying bill that we are dealing with is a bill that would actually protect workers in the workplace, the Combustible Dust Explosion and Fire Prevention Act of 2008, and it's a bill that responds to a terrible tragedy that has killed a number of workers and injured a number of workers. We need to pass this bill, and I hope we will pass the rule and pass the underlying bill. But I have to say, Mr. Speaker, it is almost laughable to hear a member of the minority get up and talk about energy prices. The Republicans have controlled the White House for 8 years. They controlled the Congress for 12 years, and we have seen energy costs rise and rise and rise under their leadership; and we have seen their policy, which is to give more subsidies and more tax breaks to Big Oil, and they have fought us consistently in trying to invest resources into alternative sources of energy, into forms of energy to help make us more independent from foreign oil. Speaker Pelosi called on President Bush to suspend purchases of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve temporarily. You know, filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, Mr. Speaker, takes 70,000 barrels of oil off the market each day even though the reserve is 97 percent full with enough to meet our national security needs. That's a good idea. Republicans opposed that. At a time of record gas prices, suspending these government purchases, as we have done in the past, could reduce gas prices by 5 to 24 cents a gallon, a critical first step for America's families, businesses and the economy. For years, Mr. Speaker, Democrats fought to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and bring down gas prices and launch a cleaner, smarter energy future for America. Yet with Republican obstructionism, American consumers and businesses have had more pain at the pump paying a record $3.56 a gallon. President Bush and congressional Republicans have spent all of their time in power doling out billions and billions and billions of dollars in subsidies to big oil companies instead of working for energy independence plans for America. We have had a number of important pieces of legislation that we have brought to the floor such as H.R. 1252, the Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act, to crack down on gas price gouging, something that is a reality in this market. It was opposed by 140 Republicans. We had a bill, H.R. 2264, the No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act, to hold OPEC accountable for oil price fixing. That was opposed by 67 Republicans, including almost the entire Republican leadership. We have had a bill to repeal the subsidies to profit-rich big oil companies and invest in renewable energy, which was H.R. 5351, the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008. It passed on February 27, 236-182. One hundred seventy-four Republicans opposed that, including the President of the United States. Now, get this, Mr. Speaker, the Republicans have opposed a measure that would take away the taxpayer-funded subsidies from the five biggest oil companies in this country that are making record profits, historic profits, it would take those subsidies and put it into renewable energy to help us become more energy independent, and they opposed it, and the President said he would veto it. And they have stopped progress on that measure. They opposed the Energy Independence and Security Act, which would be an energy independence law with a market manipulation ban and new vehicle mileage standards. Again, the majority of the Republicans stood up and opposed these commonsense measures to help us become more energy independent and to help bring these gas prices down. So their record is clear. It has been one of obstructionism. And it has been a record that has always been in the corner of Big Oil and against investing properly in some of these new technologies. So President Bush and the Republicans have blocked our efforts virtually every step of the way. I hope that that will change after the next election. I expect that will change after the next election. But it is time for the Republicans to change their habit of saying ``no'' to consumers and American business on gas prices and always saying ``yes'' to Big Oil. Enough is enough. It is time for House Republicans to provide the critical votes needed for a veto-proof majority for the legislation that I have outlined here today. Americans are paying a heavy price for the obstructionism of the Republicans in this Congress and the President of the United States. They don't want to give any more taxpayer subsidies to the big oil companies. They want us to redirect those resources into commonsense, clean, renewable, alternative sources of energy. If we do that, Mr. Speaker, then we will get these gas prices under control, and we will also take a big step forward in cleaning up our environment. Again, Mr. Speaker, I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule. Amendment To H. Res. 1157 Offered By Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balarat of Florida At the end of the resolution, add the following: Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of this resolution or the operation of the previous question, it shall be in order to consider any amendment to the substitute which the proponent asserts, if enacted, would have the effect of lowering the national average price per gallon of regular unleaded gasoline. 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 except those arising under clause 9 of rule XXI. Sec. 4. Within five legislative days the Speaker shall introduce a bill, the title of which is as follows: ``A bill to provide a common sense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices.'' Such bill shall be referred to the appropriate committees of jurisdiction pursuant to clause 1 of rule X. (The information contained herein was provided by Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 109th Congress.) The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be debating. Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or control the consideration of the subject before the House being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first recognition.'' Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the pending business.'' Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time for debate thereon.'' Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only available tools for those who oppose the Democratic majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I would ask the gentleman if he has any other speakers. I will reserve my time and let the gentleman close.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 1157 provides for the consideration of H.R. 5522, the Combustible Dust Explosion and Fire Prevention Act of 2008, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate controlled by the Committee on Education and Labor, and makes in order the committee-reported substitute. It also makes in order two amendments printed in the Rules report, with a manager's amendment debatable for 10 minutes and the Wilson substitute debatable for 30 minutes. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying legislation, H.R. 5522, the Worker Protection Against Combustible Dust Explosion and Fire Act of 2008. It directs the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to issue rules regulating combustible industrial dust that can build up to hazardous levels and explode. Combustible dust has caused deaths and injuries to workers in our Nation, deaths and injuries that could have been prevented. Most recently, everyone can recall the enormous explosion in February at the Imperial Sugar refinery in Savannah, Georgia, which claimed the lives of 13 workers and injured over 60. Many of these workers remain hospitalized today, receiving care for the severe burns they received on that awful day. While OSHA has marginally improved dust inspection procedures, this legislation goes further to bring combustible dust emissions under control by establishing stronger standards. Included are engineering controls, hazardous inspection, security assessments, housekeeping and explosion protection standards. Specifically, the Worker Protection Against Combustible Dust Explosion and Fire Act requires OSHA to issue an interim final standard to control the risk of combustible dust explosions. The standard would contain provisions for housekeeping, engineering controls, and worker training. Mr. Speaker, in 2003, there was a series of similar explosions at various factories due to combustible dust. The U.S. government undertook a study carried out by the Chemical Safety Board to determine the causes and make recommendations to OSHA. That report came out 2 years ago in 2006. OSHA has yet to issue standards to control the risks to workers and companies on the hazards of combustible dust. For this reason, the bill requires an interim standard to be issued. OSHA would then be required to issue a final standard within 18 months through its regular procedures. OSHA would be required to ``include relevant and appropriate provisions of National Fire Protection Association combustible dust standards.'' H.R. 5522 would also direct OSHA to explicitly list combustible dusts as a ``physical hazard'' in the Hazard Communication Standard, which requires employers to train workers about the chemical hazards that they are exposed to. Mr. Speaker, every worker in this country deserves a safe and healthy work environment. The AFL-CIO, the UAW, the International Association of Firefighters, the American Industrial Hygiene Association, the SEIU, the Teamsters, and the United Food and Commercial Workers Union all strongly support this important legislation. By establishing stronger protections and safer standards, this legislation better ensures thousands of workers in refineries, mills, and plants from risk of death or injury. I urge my colleagues to support the rule, and I support the underlying legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1157 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, on April 25, 2008, the 12th annual National Day of Silence will be observed. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of H. Con. Res. 328, which supports the goals and ideals of the National Day of Silence. Despite many misperceptions out there, the reason this day exists is to bring attention to the harassment, bullying, and outright abuse towards lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transsexual (LGBT) students at schools and campuses across our country. Four out of five LGBT students experience harassment at schools. Recent studies show that two of the top three reasons students are harassed in school are actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender expression. The goal of the National Day of Silence is to make schools safer and supportive for every student, regardless of sexual orientation or gender expression. It's important to recognize that hundreds of thousands of students of all beliefs, backgrounds, and sexual orientations participate in this day. Harassment and abuse affects all students, and hopefully through this inclusive, collective effort can this hatred be quieted, and eventually silenced.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the founding of the modern State of Israel. Mr. Speaker, just 60 years after its establishment as a modem state, Israel has flourished as a democracy and has proven to be a close and trusted friend of the United States. I want to associate myself with the remarks of many of my colleagues, especially those of the Honorable Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and the Honorable Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs Howard Berman. The founding of Israel is a very emotional issue, Mr. Speaker, not just for those who are Jewish by religion and heritage, but for everyone who loves democracy, and who can empathize with the pain of exile, the horror of unfathomable hatred, repression and discrimination, and the yearning for home. In preparing for this anniversary, I came across a copy of the letter signed by President Harry Truman on May 14, 1948 recognizing the new state of Israel. Its simple words reverberate even today: ``This Government has been informed that a Jewish state has been proclaimed in Palestine, and recognition has been requested by the provisional government thereof. The United States recognizes the provisional government as the de facto authority of the new''--and here it scratches out Jewish state and written in by hand are the words-- ``State of Israel.'' Signed Harry Truman, Approved, May 14, 1948. For the past 60 years, Israel has represented democracy in a region dominated by mainly authoritarian regimes. Despite a constant struggle for survival, Israel has flourished as a center of innovation in the fields of agriculture, medicine, technology and alternative energy. Like the United States, Israel is a nation of immigrants. Since its inception in 1948, Israel's population has grown five-fold. Despite its small size, it has absorbed millions of immigrants from more than 100 countries. A haven for Jewish refugees from around the world, Israel has helped Jews wherever they suffer from persecution and welcomed them into Israeli society. In the 1990s, when the Soviet Union collapsed, Israel absorbed a massive wave of new immigrants. More than one million Jews from the former Soviet Union immigrated to Israel, changing the face of Israeli society. Currently, Israel's 7.1 million residents represent a mosaic of people with varied ethnic backgrounds, lifestyles, religions, cultures and traditions. As we celebrate Israel's 60th anniversary, Jews now comprise 76 percent of the country's population, while the remainder, mostly Arabs, number about 24 percent. Over 90 percent of the population lives in the urban centers, many of which surround ancient historical sites. Only about 5 percent are members of Israel's unique rural cooperatives--the kibbutz and the moshav. Mr. Speaker, in 2005, I had the privilege of traveling to Israel with then Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. It's a visit I will never forget. We were there at Easter. We visited Bethlehem and the holy sites of Jews, Christians, and Muslims. We touched the same stones that had once been touched by David and Solomon. We walked on streets known to Joshua. We were able to walk freely, to talk to people of all stations and professions. We read a free press and heard a range of views, freely spoken, without fear of reprisal. Mr. Speaker, I have been and always will be a friend of Israel. I celebrate this 60th anniversary of her founding. And I pledge to work with my colleagues to bring peace and security to this very special and unique nation.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the survivors and their descendants of the Armenian Genocide. On Sunday, April 20th, a service in remembrance of the 93rd Commemoration of the Armenian Genocide took place at the Armenian Church of Our Savior in Worcester, Massachusetts. The message of the generations gathered there is simple: ``Honor the truth of the past because denial makes it more likely that genocide will happen again.'' Each year we mark the anniversary of the cataclysmic events that occurred in the Ottoman Empire from 1915-1923, when 1.5 million Armenians were killed and over half a million survivors were exiled. I would like to enter into the Record the letter I sent to the parishioners of the Armenian Church of Our Savior on this solemn and special occasion, as well as the April 21st article that appeared in the Worcester Telegram & Gazette describing the commemorative event. Memory is a precious commodity. I urge all my colleagues to support passage of the Armenian Genocide Resolution before we lose the last survivors of this terrible period of genocide against the Armenian people. Open Letter From Rep. James P. McGovern to the Parishioners of the Armenian Church of Our Savior April 20, 2008. Dear Friends: As you know, this year marks the 93rd anniversary of the first genocide of the 20th Century, the Armenian Genocide. Carried out between 1915 and 1923, the Armenian Genocide was a systematic and deliberate campaign by the Turkish Ottoman Empire to destroy its Armenian minority, which resulted in 1.5 million Armenian deaths and the exile of nearly all Armenians from their ancestral homeland. The Armenian Genocide is officially recognized and commemorated in 40 States, including the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and by nearly two dozen nations, including 11 of our NATO allies. The federal government must follow suit. I believe adopting the Armenian Genocide Resolution is the right thing to do: As a matter of morality--and in the name of humanity--the United States should recognize and condemn all genocides. In the name of historic truth--and in honor of the historic role so many American diplomatic personnel and humanitarian and relief workers played in saving lives and condemning the genocide as it was taking place--the U.S. especially should recognize the Armenian Genocide. And in the hope of preventing future genocides--we have to recognize and honor the truth of the past. Denial of the Armenian Genocide--just like denial of the Holocaust--makes future genocides more likely, not less. No nation, not Turkey, or any other country, should be allowed to block the official recognition or commemoration or the teaching of historic truth about the Armenian Genocide. I am disappointed that the Federal government has not yet taken the necessary and courageous steps to recognize the Armenian Genocide. I will continue to work to change that reality. It's ironic that the current Turkish government doesn't seem to realize that the more it denies the Armenian Genocide, the more people begin to think that there really is a connection between the Turks who carried out the Armenian Genocide at the beginning of the 20th Century and today's 21st Century democratic government. By denying the truth, Turkey undermines its own standing throughout the world, blocks its own acceptance into the European family, and increases regional tensions, especially with neighboring Armenia. Turkey's recognition of the Genocide, its reconciliation with the past, would widely be viewed as the act of a mature democracy, which the world would rush to embrace and reward. This is why America must also officially recognize the Armenian Genocide. Some will always argue that the timing is not right to act on this bill. But when will the timing be right? After the last surviving witnesses of the Armenian Genocide are gone? In April of last year, I was in eastern Chad. And the reality of genocide was right before my eyes. There are over 250,000 refugees from Darfur, Sudan living in camps just inside Chad. I met with individuals and families who had been forced to flee their villages in Darfur. Each had a story about loved ones murdered, homes destroyed, people and family left behind. Many didn't know if some of their family or children were even alive. So 93 years after the Armenian Genocide, I struggle to find meaning in the words, ``Never Again.'' I am thankful I can turn to Worcester's Armenian-American community for inspiration, one of the oldest in the United States and the first to establish a church in America. They have worked tirelessly for nearly a century to keep alive the historic memory of the Armenian Genocide and to speak out, condemn and organize against the genocides--too many--that mark the past nine decades of human history. They were among the very first to bring to my attention the events unfolding in Darfur. The least we can do is honor and recognize this selfless community by passing the Armenian Genocide Resolution, so that their history and heritage will be remembered for all time, even after the last survivor passes away. With warmest respect and friendship, Congressman Jim McGovern.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentlelady for her leadership on this important debate, and I rise in strong support of this rule. Mr. Speaker, the policies of the Bush administration have produced an American economy in crisis. People are losing their jobs, fuel prices are at a record high, food prices have dramatically increased, confidence in the economy is at an all-time low. Maybe this is a radical idea, but shouldn't the energy, passion and focus of the administration be on fixing these problems? This administration has turned a cold shoulder to the plight of American workers. They have opposed efforts to extend unemployment benefits. They have no plan to help 45 million Americans get health insurance. They have even opposed expanding health benefits to children. Their absolute indifference towards our fellow citizens is stunning. It takes my breath away. Well, that must change. The Speaker of the House has the right to prioritize legislation. She has stated quite clearly that we want to continue to work with President Uribe to make progress on improving human rights, the rule of law, ending impunity, breaking Colombia's political and military ties to drug lords and paramilitary groups and protecting and promoting basic labor rights. If the Colombian FTA came up today for a vote, I will strongly oppose it. I have repeatedly told the Colombian Government that I am always willing to reassess my position. But when it comes to issues like human rights, I refuse to be a cheap date. The U.N., the Red Cross and U.S. and Colombian human rights groups all describe a worsening humanitarian crisis in Colombia. The number of internally displaced grew by 27 percent over the past year due to increasing violence throughout the country. Over each of the past 3 years, murders of civilians by the Colombian army have been increasing. Violence against trade unions continues at an extremely high level, and the vast majority of cases of murders of labor leaders remain unsolved. It is true that murders of trade unionists in 2007 were about half of what they were in 2006. Even then, Colombia had the highest rate of trade union murders in the world. But death threats, attacks and disappearances skyrocketed. But this 1-year hiatus in the murder rate may be over. In just the first 12 weeks of 2008, 17 trade unionists have already been assassinated. Like many of my House colleagues, I have traveled to Colombia several times in the past 7 years. I have gone to Putumayo, not just to fly over fumigated territory, but to meet with hundreds of human rights victims and campesinos on the ground. I have been to Barrancabermeja, Sincelejo and Popayan. I have traveled to San Jose de Apartado and to Arauca, where violence from all armed actors reigns supreme and community leaders are murdered like flies. I have visited the slums of Bogota where the poor and the internally displaced struggle to survive. I spent hours in meetings with human rights groups, with families whose loved ones are held in brutal captivity by the FARC and with victims of violence by the paramilitaries and the Colombian army. I have met with the constitutional court, religious and labor leaders, with indigenous peoples and Afro-Colombians and dozens of government and military officials. There is so much more to Colombia than the administration's day and a half excursion tours to Medellin and Cartagena. Congress must insist upon improvements in human rights in Colombia and not paint a rosy picture simply to secure a trade agreement. U.S. policy must take responsibility for the behavior of Colombian behavior forces trained with U.S. tax dollars, take into account the continued suffering of the civilian population in the midst of an ongoing conflict and support the rights of victims after a decade of atrocities. I remain dedicated to the Colombian people. I will never advocate walking away from Colombia. I also strongly support the right of the Speaker of the House to take up trade agreements when it makes the most sense to do so. I urge my colleagues to adopt this rule and to remain engaged with Colombia on these important issues.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 1077 and I want to thank the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, for her leadership and commitment to the people of Tibet. For many years, in both words and deeds, she has stood by the people of Tibet, and called for the respect and support of their dignity, culture, heritage, and religion. And I am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation. Madam Speaker, I believe Tibet is one of the most serious human rights and political freedom issues of our time. The violent response by Chinese military forces to peaceful protests that began in the Tibetan capital on March 11th is horrifying. I believe the United States and the international community must convey a strong condemnation of these acts, an accounting by China on the welfare and whereabouts of the many detained Buddhist monks and other Tibetan citizens who have been arrested, and facilitate access by international human rights monitors and journalists to Tibetan areas, as requested by His Holiness, the Dalai Lama. The State Department's 2007 Country Reports on Human Rights describes a human rights situation in China and Tibet that continues to worsen while the repression of religious freedom has increased. There is very disturbing evidence of a pre-Olympic crackdown on religious leaders, journalists and lawyers in recent months. It is long past time for the government in Beijing to respect the human rights and religion of every Tibetan. Further, as the protests in Tibet began calling for greater economic opportunity and equality, they clearly call into question China's claims that its development of Tibet advances the prosperity of Tibetans as well as the ethnic Chinese Han who have been encouraged to migrate to Tibet and establish themselves there. Since I was first elected to Congress, I have worked with many of my House colleagues to press for greater freedom for Tibet and for the release of Tibetan prisoners of conscience who have been jailed by Chinese authorities, most of whom are imprisoned for their political and cultural beliefs. Personally, I believe Tibet should be restored as an independent nation, which it was prior to China's military invasion over 50 years ago. I deeply fear that China is successfully destroying a culture, religion and national heritage that have survived for thousands of years. The legislation before us this evening calls upon the Government of the People's Republic of China to end its crackdown in Tibet and enter into a substantive dialogue with his holiness the Dalai Lama to find a negotiated solution that respects the distinctive language, culture, religious identify, and fundamental freedoms of all Tibetans. It is not a call for independence. But it is a call for the Chinese Government to respond as a mature member of the international community. I hope that Beijing will understand much is required of a nation that desires to be a leader in regional and international affairs, including the capacity to genuinely negotiate differences and find solutions that are meaningful and acceptable to all. Madam Speaker, I have joined with my congressional colleagues, in a bipartisan fashion, on matters to Chinese authorities about the recent protests in Tibet. Over the past years I have also petitioned the Chinese Government on several individual cases, the most high profile of which would be the safety and well-being of the Pachan Lama. I have also asked my own government, at the highest levels, to advocate for the release of particular prisoners and for greater freedoms for the Tibetan people. I must admit, however, that I am very frustrated by the fact that the United States, like the rest of the international community, appears to voice reverence for the Tibetan culture and religion, while standing idly by and watching it be slowly eroded and dismantled year by year by the Chinese authorities. In the meantime, China continues to pursue its policies in Tibet, knowing there is no price to pay for its actions. This time, Madam Speaker, we must all act differently. There must be consequences for the brutal repression of Tibet. I hope the Chinese Government will heed the message of this resolution. I hope it will open a genuine dialogue with His Holiness the Dalai Lama and negotiate in good faith a just solution with and for the people of Tibet. I promise the sponsors of this bill that I will continue to join them and speak out on these matters and press President Bush, the international community, and the Chinese Government to respect the basic human rights of the Tibetan people. And passage of H. Res. 1077 is the first step in moving this process forward.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, get this. The Secretary of Agriculture has publicly stated that he is not enthusiastic about increasing spending for nutrition programs above the $9.5 billion currently being discussed as part of the farm bill conference. I have news for the Secretary. Families going to food banks aren't enthusiastic about their struggles. People applying for food stamps aren't enthusiastic about the tough choices they are forced to make because their food stamp benefit isn't keeping up with the price of milk. Seniors aren't enthusiastic about having to take their medicines on an empty stomach. The Secretary should get out more into the real world and meet with some of these families. $9.5 billion is simply not enough, not when families are choosing between food and heat; not when the minimum food stamp benefit is still $10 a month, unchanged since 1977; not when the price of milk eats more of the food stamp dollar today, than last year, simply because food stamps aren't indexed for inflation. The farm bill conferees should do the right thing and properly fund the nutrition title. Anything less is shameful.

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I just want to again commend the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for her incredible work on this bill. And for the Record, there is bipartisan appreciation for her strong and passionate commitment to ending the scourge of HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just yield myself 20 seconds. I appreciate the gentleman's response. I would just remind the gentleman again, and everybody, that this is a bill about saving lives. And this is a bill that is supported by the head of the Republican Party, the President of the United States. And so, I am proud to join in support of this bipartisan collaboration. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1065 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 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 be given 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1065.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1065 provides for the consideration of H.R. 5501, the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act of 2008, a structured rule. The rule provides for 2 hours of general debate and makes in order four amendments, each of which is debatable for 10 minutes. Mr. Speaker, all Members of this House should be very proud of the bipartisan collaboration and careful compromises that have resulted in the underlying bill before us today, H.R. 5501, the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act. I wish to express my appreciation to the work of the gentleman from New Jersey, Congressman Donald Payne, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health, and Subcommittee Ranking Member Chris Smith, as well as House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman and Ranking Member Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. And, like all of my House colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I am grateful that the committee named this bill after the great leaders of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Chairmen Tom Lantos and Henry Hyde, who guided the original 2003 act into law. May the collegial spirit of these two great champions for global health guide us all during today's debate. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5501 would authorize $50 billion over the next 5 years for U.S. global programs that address the prevention, care, and treatment of HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. It strengthens, sustains, and expands a program that is universally recognized as one of the shining accomplishments of the Bush administration. The challenge for this reauthorization is to move our HIV/AIDS programs beyond the emergency phase first called for under the President's Emergency Program For Aids Relief, or PEPFAR, and make them sustainable over the long term. Over the past 5 years, we have literally gone from watching people die from HIV/AIDS to watching people live and return to productive lives in their communities. The 2003 Act provided $15 billion over 5 years; H.R. 5501 provides $50 billion, a direct response to the needs identified over the past 5 years for life-saving medicines and well-trained, effective national health care systems. The 2003 law relied upon the health care workforce and infrastructure already in place in developing countries. In a farsighted move, Mr. Speaker, today's bill invests in strengthening HIV-related health care systems and building the capacity of the health care workforce in these nations. Under this legislation, funds will be used to train some 144,000 new health care workers over the next 5 years to care for people infected with HIV. This is just a start on easing the severe shortage of health care workers in the developing world, and it is our hope that other donor nations will follow our lead. If there is ever to be a hope that these programs can become self-sustaining, health care capacity must be significantly strengthened in countries hard hit by HIV/AIDS. The 2003 bill focused on creating new programs to tackle the HIV/AIDS crisis. This reauthorization builds stronger linkages between our global HIV/AIDS initiatives and existing programs designed to alleviate hunger, improve health care, bolster education, and increase income security and stable livelihoods, an approach endorsed by the President's Global AIDS Coordinator in February in his annual report to Congress. These changes ensure that our HIV/AIDS programs no longer operate in isolation from our other development priorities, and that the expertise and benefits from these other programs are provided in an effective manner to HIV/AIDS affected individuals, families, and communities. In addition, the bill increases U.S. contributions to the Global Fund for HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, and provides benchmarks to improve the transparency and accountability of the Global Fund. And while the majority of the funding authorized in H.R. 5501 is focused on the prevention, care, and treatment of HIV/AIDS-infected people and communities, I would like to emphasize that the bill specifically authorizes $4 billion over 5 years for a comprehensive strategy to combat tuberculosis, and $5 billion for the prevention, treatment, control, and elimination of malaria. In addition, it better integrates our HIV/AIDS programs with the diagnosis, testing, counseling, treatment, prevention, care, and health care treatment needed in the fight against TB and malaria. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5501 also removes the requirement that one-third of all funds for HIV/AIDS prevention be dedicated to abstinence-only programs. Over the past 5 years, this restriction has proven to hamper the effectiveness of our health care efforts in the field, as documented by two recent independent reports produced by the Government Accountability Office, GAO, and President Bush's own Office of Personnel Management. This reauthorization now requires the Executive to promote a balanced prevention program that includes every element of abstinence, being faithful, and condoms, the ABC approach toward HIV transmission prevention. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5501 also allows U.S.-supported family planning organizations to provide HIV/AIDS testing and counseling services. This will ensure that many more women of reproductive age receive vital information related to their HIV status, as well as HIV/AIDS education. Mr. Speaker, we all need to recall that 20 million men, women, and children have perished from HIV/AIDS; 40 million people around the world are HIV positive; and each and every day another 6,000 people are infected with HIV. It is a moral imperative that we act strongly, decisively, and continue to address this crisis in a forward-looking manner. Five years ago, President Bush acted to meet a perceived emergency as the AIDS epidemic spread out of control. During that period, the United States has provided drug treatment to nearly 1.5 million people. We have given supportive care to another 6.6 million, including 2.7 million orphans and vulnerable children. And, our programs have prevented an estimated 150,000 infant infections. During this first 5- year phase of programming, U.S. bilateral programs to combat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria were expanded to 114 countries. Today, the U.S. now supports programs in 136 countries, including programs funded by the United States and administered through the Global Fund. We can all be proud of this record of accomplishment, but there is so much more left to do. Now we must work on making these initial gains sustainable, our programs even more effective, and expanding them to reach an even greater number of HIV/AIDS affected communities. Specifically, over the next 5-year period, H.R. 5501 aims to: Prevent 12 million new infections; Provide anti-retroviral treatment for 3 million people, including 450,000 children; Provide medical and other care for 12 million people, including 5 million orphans; And, train over 140,000 health care workers in the developing world. Mr. Speaker, addressing global HIV/AIDS is one of the moral imperatives of our time. And while history will no doubt judge our response, it is more important that each of us recognizes that we can truly make a difference in the lives of millions of people right here and right now. H.R. 5501 represents a genuine bipartisan compromise. I urge my colleagues to adopt this rule and to support the underlying legislation, H.R. 5501. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5501 is one of the most important foreign policy global health bills this Congress will pass this year. We have literally gone from, 5 years ago from standing helplessly by and watching people die of HIV/AIDS, to watching people live and take up productive lives in their communities. The impact is far-reaching. For example, Mr. Speaker, let me highlight just one sector of development that has broad bipartisan support in this Congress, basic education. We all know that education is key to lifting countries out of poverty. And HIV/AIDS creates barriers to education. Teacher deaths and absenteeism due to HIV/AIDS compound problems of quality and access in education systems that already face teacher shortages. Children are often pulled out of school to care for a family member with HIV/AIDS or, when a parent dies, they're forced to take care of younger siblings rather than attend school. HIV/AIDS affected children who are able to attend school often face discrimination and are sometimes segregated from other children or denied admission entirely by teachers or school administrators. Young people with little or no education are more than twice as likely to contract HIV as those who have completed primary education. But under this bill, and as we continue to better integrate our HIV/ AIDS programs with our other development priorities, schools can become hubs of care and support for orphans and vulnerable children by providing psychological support, nutrition and basic health care and support to OVC caregivers. In a 32-country demographic and health survey, women with post primary education were four times more likely than illiterate women to know the basic facts about HIV/AIDS, and three times more likely to know that HIV can be transmitted from mother to child. Oxfam estimates that if all children completed primary education, 700,000 new cases of HIV/AIDS in young people could be prevented each year, totaling 7 million cases in one decade. Mr. Speaker, for these and so many other reasons, this bipartisan bill deserves our support. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support the underlying bill, H.R. 5501. The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows: Amendment to H. Res. 1065 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida At the end of the resolution, add the following: Sec. 3. That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the House shall, without intervention of any point of order, consider in the House the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 263) to establish the Joint Select Committee on Earmark Reform, and for other purposes. The concurrent resolution shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution to final adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules; and (2) one motion to recommit.

Mr. McGOVERN. I am the final speaker on our side.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me yield myself such time as I may consume. Again, I find it somewhat ironic to listen to the gentleman's comments who has no problem supporting a $3 trillion war in Iraq that has resulted in 4,000 American soldiers dead, tens of thousands wounded; and on top of all that, not even paying for the war, just putting it on the credit card so our kids and our grandkids have to pay for it. Many of my friends on the other side of the aisle who have supported tax cuts for the richest of the rich and decided that it wasn't important to pay for it; instead, put it on the credit card and on the backs of our kids; who have voted for budgets to cut veterans health and to cut money for health care in general. And what we have been trying to do is to make up for the indifference of so many years. You know, the gentleman presents a false choice. What we're trying to do here is actually respond to a humanitarian crisis in a bipartisan way. I mean, I don't often stand with the President of the United States, but I do on this. He's right. We can't ignore the HIV/AIDS crisis or the crisis with regard to malaria and tuberculosis around the world. This is a moral imperative. And I will tell you, in addition to being a moral imperative, it makes sense for the United States to take a leadership role and encourage the rest of the world to step up and to provide the resources to combat these scourges. This is the right thing to do. I'm proud of this bipartisan collaboration of this bill. And I hope all my colleagues will support it. I want to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida, my colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. Hastings.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. To be honest, Mr. Speaker, I find it stunning that a Member from the Republican Party would come up here and talk about the debt that our children have been forced to inherit. I will remind my colleagues that when Bill Clinton left office, we had a surplus. After the leadership of George Bush and the Republican Congresses, we are now in historic record debt. I now have inherited a debt tax. I am all for investing more in medical research. I would much rather do that, quite frankly, than invest in tax cuts for Donald Trump or more subsidies to Big Oil companies or more tax giveaways to big corporations that are gouging the American taxpayer. But what we have here, Mr. Speaker, is a bill to save lives. This is a moral imperative. It is a product of bipartisan collaboration. This is something that we can be proud of. This is something the American people, I think, support overwhelmingly. And so, we don't need any lectures about the mess this economy is in. This President and the Republican Congresses have driven this economy into a ditch, and we're trying to get us out of that ditch. So, I would urge my colleagues to focus on what is being debated here today, which is a bill to save lives, to end the scourge of HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. This is a worthy goal. This is something that we should be committed to. And I think that the bipartisan collaboration that has produced this deserves to be praised and not ridiculed. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind my colleagues that the underlying debate is not about the space program, it's about whether we're going to end the terrible scourge of HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis that has cost the lives of countless individuals across this planet. This is a moral imperative. And I am proud of the bipartisan work done by Democrats and Republicans working together to accomplish this bill. At this time, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I want to thank the chairman for that assurance. I know that many Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle stand ready to support him in these efforts.