Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. And I yield back to the chairman to express his views.

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the chairman, and I ask for time for the purpose of the gentlelady from Missouri and I entering into a colloquy with the chairman on the importance of integrating food and nutrition programs with the prevention, care, and treatment of HIV/AIDS-affected individuals, families, and communities. Last year, I traveled to Africa and had the opportunity to see firsthand many of our programs related to food security. In Ethiopia and Kenya, I visited HIV/AIDS programs to look at how food and nutrition was included. At that time, I heard from local communities, NGO partners, and our embassy staff how restrictive guidance for global HIV/AIDS assistance often hindered their ability to design and carry out effective food and nutrition programs targeted at HIV/AIDS affected individuals, families, and communities. The lack of resources available for food and nutrition programs within the global HIV/AIDS assistance and from other sources also posed a significant barrier. I very much appreciate and support the work of the committee in ensuring that this bill addresses these concerns throughout, and especially in the section entitled ``Food Security and Nutrition Support.'' The bill recognizes that strengthening the linkages and enhancing coordination among HIV/AIDS programs and vital development programs, like food and nutrition programs, will significantly increase our effectiveness in the fight against HIV/AIDS while we advance other essential U.S. development priorities. I remain concerned, however, that the bill is less clear on where or how such funding will be provided for these purposes. It is not clear on how much funding will come from the Global HIV/AIDS program versus other sources of funding. I am concerned that, without adequate resources through the Global HIV/ AIDS program, or necessary increases for current food and nutrition services through programs like Food for Peace, that USAID will be faced with the possibility of having to divert funding from programs that address long-term chronic hunger and food insecurity to meet the enhanced mandates of H.R. 5501. I know the chairman will agree that we want to avoid this scenario of robbing Peter to pay Paul so that we do not end up shortchanging other communities suffering from hunger, malnutrition, and food insecurity. I want to yield to the gentlelady from Missouri in this regard.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I reserve my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the School Nutrition Association, SNA, and the Global Child Nutrition Foundation, GCNF naming April as Global Child Nutrition Month. As part of this recognition, school nutrition professionals are encouraged to take 1 day, 1 week, or all month to partner with students and teachers in an effort to raise awareness about the ravages of hunger among children around the globe and here in the United States. Hunger is a political condition. We have the means to end hunger here in the U.S. and around the world--we just haven't mustered the political will to do so. This observance is an opportunity to raise awareness about the solutions to global hunger and poverty and, ultimately, to help build momentum in the fight to end the scourge of hunger. At any given moment, as many as 300 million of the world's children are trapped in the grinding cycle of poverty and hunger. Imagine trying to learn, grow and succeed while struggling with hunger. For some children, hunger may be offset by healthy school meals. For others, especially in developing nations, hunger is acute--it is literal starvation. It is a contributor to disease and early death. According to the United Nations, hunger and malnutrition take the lives of 18,000 kids every single day. Although we may not be able to resolve all sorts of natural and political forces, we do know that nurturing and educating a child is the single most effective means of breaking the cycle of poverty. According to the World Food Program, 130 million children do not attend school; and among those who do, most do not receive meals during school hours. A hungry child cannot learn or thrive; a society whose children live in hunger will never prosper. The Global Child Nutrition Foundation was created in 2006 with the mission of expanding opportunities for the world's children to receive adequate nutrition for learning and achieving their potential. This observance is also an opportunity to raise awareness about the solutions to global hunger and poverty. GCNF President and SNA Past President Gene White, a certified school nutrition specialist, said it best--``By combining our will and resources, hunger will no longer set boundaries for learning and achievement. Freeing children from hunger so they may become self- supporting, contributing citizens is a worthy endeavor. It is also a step toward building a more stable and peaceful world.'' Madam Speaker, as someone who is committed to ending hunger once and for all, I thank and commend the School Nutrition Association and the Global Child Nutrition Foundation for naming April as Global Child Nutrition Month. It is my hope that all of us can work to be part of the solution as we raise awareness in eradicating hunger.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday, April 2, 2008.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, 3 months after the United Nations took over peacekeeping and joined forces with African Union peacekeepers, the situation in Darfur has entered a new and deadly phase of conflict. There has been an upsurge of violence in western Darfur, and the Sudanese government launched an offensive at the beginning of February. A number of villages have been bombed by government planes, and there have been ground attacks by the Sudanese army and its allies, the Janjaweed militias. According to the United Nations, more than 100 people have been killed and thousands more left homeless. A March 12 article in the UK Independent describes recent events in Darfur as ``a return to hell,'' with another ``scorched earth policy'' being unleashed by the Sudanese government, reminiscent of the worst waves of government-backed violence 5 years ago, actions that led the United States to declare what was happening in Darfur as genocide. Darfur is home to the world's largest humanitarian operation, but the World Food Program reports that 45 of its trucks have been hijacked already this year. WFP now transports about half as much food into Darfur as it normally would. Tensions also run high between neighboring Chad and Sudan, and eastern Chad is receiving a new influx of refugees from Darfur at a time when Chad itself is facing instability and displacement. The new commander of the U.N.-African Union peacekeeping force said it would not be fully deployed until the end of this year, possibly not until the beginning of 2009. The peacekeeping mission, which is supposed to deploy 26,000 peacekeepers, currently has only about 9,000 soldiers on the ground. The Sudanese government, President Al-Bashir, is defying the world. The government is blocking new deployments of U.N. peacekeepers at every turn, vetoing non-African troops, blocking supplies, and refusing to provide land for bases. But the international community is also to blame for the obstacles confronting the peacekeeping mission. Nations have failed to make good on their pledges of support, from soldiers to equipment to funds. The mission requires 18 troop-carrying helicopters and six armored attack helicopters. So far, they have none. U.N. officials say they could have responded to last month's attack if they had the right equipment. Mr. Speaker, why haven't the United States and our Western European allies provided these helicopters to the U.N.-AU peacekeeping mission? Why aren't we working collectively and with Russia and China to make sure this force has the helicopters, equipment, manpower and funding necessary to protect the people in Darfur and the refugees? Why hasn't the U.N. Security Council called an emergency session and targeted new sanctions at Sudan's highest officials, including President Bashir? Why isn't the international community working together to make sure peacekeeping missions are fully equipped and deployed to eastern Chad and the Central African Republic? Why haven't we lived up to our word to stop the genocide in Darfur? Mr. Speaker, words are not enough. It is action that is needed. And while we remain silent, while we refrain from taking action and fulfilling our promises, women and children are raped. Homes are being looted. Villages are being burned to the ground. People are dying of hunger and exposure. Darfur is returning to hell.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1036 provides for consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 312, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for FY 2009, under a structured rule. The rule provides a total of 4 hours of general debate, 3 hours to be controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget and 1 hour on the subject of economic goals and policies to be controlled by Representative Maloney of New York and Representative Saxton of New Jersey. The rule makes in order the three substitute amendments: one by Representative Kilpatrick of Michigan; one by Representative Lee of California; and a final substitute by Representative Ryan of Wisconsin. Each amendment is debatable for 60 minutes. The rule also permits the chairman of the Budget Committee to offer amendments in the House to achieve mathematical consistency. Finally, the rule provides that the concurrent resolution shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question of its adoption. Mr. Speaker, this is the traditional rule for consideration of the budget resolution, and I welcome today's debate on the alternative budgets that will be presented by the Republican leadership, the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by expressing my thanks and appreciation to Budget Committee Chairman Spratt and Ranking Member Ryan for their leadership and hard work on the House Budget Committee. Although they hold very different points of view, the committee always operates in a cordial and collegial manner. I have served on the Budget Committee for 2 years, and it has been a privilege to learn from two such distinguished Members how to work in a bipartisan way despite sharp philosophical differences. And all of us are supported, Mr. Speaker, by a superb and dedicated committee staff. Mr. Speaker, budgets are moral documents. They reflect our priorities. And for too long, this Congress passed budgets with the wrong priorities. For too long, our budgets put the desires of the powerful before the needs of the poor. For too long, our budgets pretended that people who were struggling didn't even exist, let alone matter. That has begun to change. The Democratic budget before us today is a budget with a conscience. Today, we continue the new direction set last year to bring the Federal budget back to fiscal health and responsibility. As we begin this debate, our country faces major challenges: a looming 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 basic needs. Faced with these challenges, President Bush proposed the same tired, worn-out, failed fiscal and economic policies. After 7 years, the Bush legacy is the highest deficits in our Nation's history. Let us remember, Mr. Speaker, when President Bush took office, when the Republicans had total control over the White House, the Senate and this House, they were welcomed with a $5.6 trillion projected 10-year budget surplus, the financial gift of the last Democrat to sit in the White House. That has been completely squandered, resulting in the largest fiscal deterioration in American history. And the President's FY 2009 budget proposed only more of the same. The national debt exploded under President Bush and his Republican rubber-stamp Congress. At the end of 2008, CBO projects a $9.6 trillion debt, an increase of nearly $4 trillion, brought to you courtesy of George Bush. Future generations, our children and our grandchildren, will be forced to pay the price for this unprecedented rise in debt thanks to the Republicans' fiscally reckless and irresponsible policies. And to top it off, the President's budget continues the Bush legacy of deep cuts in many of the most important programs and services for the American people: $500 billion in cuts to Medicare. $100 billion in cuts to Medicaid, which serves the poorest Americans, including families with children. The elimination of the Community Services Block Grant and the Social Services Block Grant, and deep cuts in the Community Development Block Grant, which provides nearly every city and town in America with Federal support for basic services. Elimination of the Community Oriented Policing grants, the COPS grants, and deep cuts for State and local law enforcement at a time when States and local communities are finding it hard to meet the needs of their first responders. And deep cuts in many other vital programs that provide health care, infrastructure, environmental protection, and other services to our States and to our neighborhoods. Let me give but one example, Mr. Speaker, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP. Last week, the worst snow storm in a century hit the people of Ohio and the Midwest. Two weeks ago, the people of central Massachusetts were facing over three feet of snow. Across the country, people are suffering in the cold. Home heating costs have gone up by 80 percent under George Bush. A barrel of oil now costs $108. But President Bush decided to cut $570 million out of the LIHEAP program. The President decided to turn off the heat for 1.2 million households, forcing families to choose either to heat or to eat. And why? So we could continue tax cuts for the wealthiest, most fortunate billionaires in America. Mr. Speaker, the Democratic budget rejects the President's priorities. It rejects the callous view of the Republican Party that tens of millions of American families are expendable, that our communities can manage without basic services, that our roads, bridges and water systems should be allowed to crumble and fail, and that we can run up America's credit card without costs or consequences. Instead, the Democratic budget restores fiscal responsibility to the Federal budget, returning it to balance in the year 2012. It rejects the President's harmful cuts to basic services, and invests in proven programs that boost economic growth, create jobs, and make America safer. The Democratic budget helps families struggling to make ends meet in this economic downturn, and provides fiscally responsible tax relief to millions and millions of households. Finally, the Democratic 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 our families. It provides more funding for homeland security programs, including first responders, than the President would. And finally, it takes care of our veterans and rejects President Bush's cynical new fees for veterans health care. Instead, the Democratic budget increases health care funding for our veterans well above current services, enough to allow the VA to treat 5.8 million patients in 2009, including over 333,000 Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans. Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation, House Concurrent Resolution 312, the fiscal year 2009 budget resolution, is a budget all Americans who believe in fiscal responsibility and the common good can support. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1036.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose 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. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) General Leave

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, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1036 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me say to my colleagues that security also means the economic well-being of our citizens. And because of Republican priorities over the last 7 years, record numbers of our citizens are struggling like never before. The very rich have done very well. And the rest have not. Those are the facts. The Democratic budget that has been put forward restores fiscal responsibility. It rejects the President's harmful cuts in programs like Medicare and Medicaid. It rejects the President's proposal to impose new fees for our veterans and our military retirees. It strengthens our economy. It invests more in innovation. It invests more in energy, renewable and clean energy. It invests more in education and in our infrastructure. It also provides tax relief to help struggling families. It accommodates the tax relief from the alternative minimum tax for more than 20 million households, as well as middle income tax cuts and other tax relief so long as they comply with the pay-as-you-go rule. It invests more in children's health. It provides more funding for safety net programs. Record numbers of our citizens are literally falling through the cracks in our country. It invests in defense, in veterans, and in homeland security. The facts are, Mr. Speaker, that for years we have been forced to accept the priorities of George Bush and his Republican colleagues who have controlled the Congress. That is now changing. For nearly 7 years, we have watched as they have accumulated huge debt, historical debt. We have watched as they have chipped away at some of the most important programs that help some of the most desperate people in our country. The American people have had enough. That is what the last election was about. They have had their chance. They have shown us their priorities. And the American people have rejected them. It is now time to create a budget that has a conscience that responds to the needs of the struggling middle class in this country. The Democratic budget that will be offered today will do that and change the course of this country.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman asked the right question: What are American families facing? What are American families facing after 7 years of Bush budgets and Republican budgets? What they're facing are challenges like never before. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the real income of a typical family has fallen by almost $1,000 since George Bush became President. The Democratic budget provides funds to keep up with rising food, housing, and heating and transportation costs. In the area of education, the Democratic budget provides $7.1 billion more for education and job training than the Bush budget. It increases funding for Head Start, special education, No Child Left Behind, and title I. Under George Bush, only four out of 10 children eligible for Head Start received services. The Democratic budget increases funding for Head Start so that more children will enter school ready to learn. And, again, let me repeat, Mr. Speaker. The Hamilton Project of the Brookings Institution, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and the Concord Coalition have all sent Members of Congress letters stating emphatically that the Democratic budget does not increase taxes. Let me say one thing the Democratic budget does do, and that is it relieves the burden of debt that has been thrust upon our kids and our grandkids. The Republicans, during these last several years, have increased the debt to historic highs, and in doing so, they have created a debt tax on our kids and our grandkids. We want to remove that tax burden from future generations. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia, a member of the Budget Committee (Mr. Scott).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will insert into the Record letters from The Hamilton Project and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which state clearly and unequivocally that the Democratic budget resolution does not raise taxes. The Hamilton Project, Washington, DC, March 7, 2008. Congressman John Spratt, Longworth Bldg., Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Spratt: Per your request, I have analyzed the House Budget Committee's budget resolution. The budget would not raise taxes. The revenue levels in the budget are, in net total, the same as the baseline revenue levels projected by the Congressional Budget Office. These revenue levels are consistent with continuing current law, not with changes to the law that would raise or lower taxes. The purpose of a budget baseline is to establish a neutral starting point to debate and evaluate alternative priorities for spending, taxes, and the debt. The budget resolution adopts the baseline recommended by several respected, non- partisan groups including the Concord Coalition, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and the Committee for Economic Development. But the choice of a baseline does not commit policymakers to any specific tax or spending policy. Instead a baseline, in conjunction with the restoration of the pay-as-you-go rules, would provide a framework for making tradeoffs between different priorities. Indeed, your budget indicates that one of your priorities is making up-front cuts in taxes for alternative minimum tax relief that would ultimately be paid for without increasing the budget deficit. The founding strategy paper of The Hamilton Project states that one of the greatest economic risks our nation faces today is our country's large fiscal imbalance. The papers notes that ``the decisions necessary to restore fiscal balance might be easier to enact and to enforce if policymakers reinstated credible budget rules governing both spending and taxes.'' The pay-as-you-go proposal in the budget resolution will hopefully help policymakers make the tough choices required to put America on a path to a balanced budget. I hope this analysis is helpful and please do not hesitate if you have any follow-up questions. Thank you, Jason Furman.

Mr. McGOVERN. I am the last speaker.

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the resolution on the table.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the resolution on the table.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. We all know that breakfast is the most important meal of the day. We also know that it's nearly impossible to learn on an empty stomach. These are two of the most important reasons why the school breakfast program is so important. I'm pleased to be a cosponsor of this important resolution recognizing the importance of school breakfasts. I want to commend the gentlewoman from Wisconsin, Congresswoman Moore, for introducing this important resolution and I want to recognize and honor the members of the School Nutrition Association who are here in Washington, DC, this week for their national conference. The school breakfast program allows qualified students to eat a meal at school for either free or for a reduced price. Together with the school lunch program and after school meal programs, the school breakfast program allows America's school-aged children to receive nutritious meals while at school. Unfortunately, there are shortcomings in the school meal program that need to be addressed in the future. One issue is the underfunding of summer feeding programs. The Federal Government does not fund summer meals at the same level as it funds meals delivered at school. Any child who receives a meal at school shouldn't have to go without a meal during the summer months simply because Congress doesn't properly fund that part of the program. Another is obesity and nutritious foods. Obesity is a real crisis and we need to ensure that our children are eating the most nutritious foods available. School meals must meet rigorous nutritional standards and they should be consistent nationwide. We also have to be conscious about the rising cost of food and the impact of these rising costs on the school meal programs. A third issue is the difference between free and reduced price meals. Unfortunately, some qualified children receive free meals at school while others must pay a portion of the meal price. Finally, I want to express my strong support for school breakfast programs that begin when class starts, or ``at the bell.'' Most children who eat school breakfast must arrive at school before class starts. That can be both a hardship for the children and their families in trying to get them to school in time to eat. But it can also be a social stigma for these children who arrive early to eat because it's clear which children must arrive early to eat. We can eliminate that social stigma by serving school breakfasts at the bell. The Child Nutrition Act will be reauthorized next year, and we will have an opportunity to make substantive improvements in these important school meal programs. But today, we are recognizing the importance of the school breakfast programs and honoring the people who administer and work on these programs in school districts across the country.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure and pride that I rise today to recognize Paul Rogers. Paul is an outstanding asset to the entire community and has spent over 50 years sharing his passion for horticulture with the people of Massachusetts. This weekend, Paul is being honored by the Stockbridge Alumni Association with their prestigious ``S'' Award and this year's annual Central Massachusetts Flower Show Dinner has been named ``A Tribute to Paul Rogers.'' An alumnus of the Stockbridge School of Agriculture at UMASS, Paul Rogers received an associates degree in horticulture. Mr. Rogers took time away from school to serve during the Korean War from 1951 to 1954, when he was stationed in East Africa. Upon returning to the United States, Paul Rogers continued his education and earned a bachelor's degree from Clark University in Worcester. Following his education, he served as a landscape superintendent at Holy Cross College for 20 years. He began his own greenhouse, Stonehenge Gardens, and served as a horticultural consultant throughout the area. He was nominated as the president of the Worcester Horticultural Society, the Massachusetts Horticultural Society and the Horticultural Club of Boston and was the only person ever to hold all three of these positions. Currently, Mr. Rogers can be found in a number of places throughout the State, teaching horticulture and inviting others to share in his passion. For the past three decades he has served as the host of ``Gardener's Calendar'' on WTAG radio and as the garden writer for the Worcester Telegram & Gazette. In addition, he is a lecturer at the Landscape Institute of Harvard at the world renowned Arnold Arboretum. And he is a member of many societies, including the Worcester County Horticultural Society, the Massachusetts Horticultural Society, the American Horticultural Society, the Horticultural Club of Boston, Garden Writers Association of America, and a Trustee of Old Sturbridge. Madam Speaker, I am truly appreciative of the work Paul Rogers has done for the residents of the 3rd Congressional district. For his outstanding service, I ask my colleagues in the United States House of Representatives to join me in honoring Paul Rogers.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, this House lost one of its finest Members with the passing of Tom Lantos. He was a dear friend, who taught me a great deal about human rights and a life dedicated to service, and I will miss him. One of my favorite memories of our service together is the day I was arrested alongside Tom in front of the Sudanese Embassy in Washington, DC, protesting the continuing genocide in Darfur. I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues an article from the February 22, 2008 edition of the Boston Herald that urges everyone to emulate Tom's legacy of service and devotion to human rights. Written by Anthony Barsamian with the Armenian Assembly of America and Michael Ross, the son of a Holocaust survivor, it expresses what we all feel about Tom's commitment to ending man's inhumanity to man. [From the Boston Herald, February 22, 2008] Tom Lantos Passes Humanity's Torch (By Anthony Barsamian and Michael Ross) Humanity lost one of its greatest voices this month. No one lived up to the promise of the words ``never again'' better than Rep. Tom Lantos. As the only Holocaust survivor to have served in Congress, he dedicated his career to working on behalf of others. Those who survive genocide live with complexities that few can understand--post-traumatic stress, feelings of guilt for having survived, a victim of man's most diabolical incarnation, a witness to history--to name a few. On the one hand, a survivor must rectify his tragic past while on another, he must make sense of a stunted future. With great strength and determination, survivors and their families move forward and rebuild their lives, for a second time. To start a life anew is difficult enough. To do so as a U.S. congressman is nothing short of miraculous. Only in America--as Lantos would say. For Holocaust survivors and their families, Lantos was a source of pride. For those who searched for a voice of justice, in him they found their greatest friend. Tom Lantos spoke out against genocide in Darfur, at one point being arrested for protesting outside the Sudanese Embassy along with four other Democratic lawmakers, including Bay State Reps. Jim McGovern and John Olver. One of his final acts was a resolution that would recognize the slaughter of innocent Armenians for what it was-- genocide. As chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Lantos refused to be part of a campaign of denial and looked beyond the politics of convenience by passing the resolution. During a PBS interview last October, Lantos said, ``This is one of those events which has to be settled once and for all: 1.5 million utterly innocent Armenian men, women and children were slaughtered. And the Turkish government, until now, has intimidated the Congress of the United States from taking this measure. I think it's important, at a time when genocides are going on in Darfur and elsewhere, not to be an accomplice in sweeping an important genocide under the rug.'' The resolution has yet to be acted upon by the entire House--something, no doubt, Lantos, would want. Lantos understood what it meant to stand up for his fellow man, much in the same way someone helped him when he needed it. An otherwise ordinary bureaucrat, Raoul Wallenberg, chose to become an extraordinary person when, over the course of his diplomatic career, he found a way to save 100,000 Hungarian Jews. Lantos was among them. As people who have inherited a legacy from our families, we have an obligation to recognize man's inhumanity to man regardless of whether it is convenient to do so. We have an obligation to properly recognize an injustice by its name, regardless of the political discomfort or cost. And, like Lantos, we have an obligation to live by the words ``never again'' and to remind the world when those ominous words are back in play. In Tom Lantos' passing we lost the sentinel on humanity's gate. We owe it to those he protected to speak the truth, no matter the cost.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Rob Cogorno, who will soon be leaving his Congressional career here in the House of Representatives for new opportunities off of Capitol Hill. Rob's formal title is Floor Director for the Majority Leader, but he is truly a servant of this institution. Rob has worked for several Members of Congress over his 25-year Capitol Hill career, but the reality is that he has truly served both this institution and the ideals that make it what it is. As a former Congressional staffer, I recognize the value of our staff. We would not be who we are and our country would not be where it is without, in part, our dedicated, smart and hardworking staff. Throughout his career in the House, Rob has served both the individual Members of Congress he worked for and all the Members of Congress of this institution. Rob is a strategist. He's a master of the procedures that make the House run. He knows what makes the Democratic Caucus tick. He knows how the various groups that make up our Caucus think. He did more than make the trains run on time or make sure that we, as Members of Congress, had an outlet for our various requests. He gave us his unvarnished opinion, in his calm, easy-going, unflappable way, and at times, he was on the receiving end of some very ``spirited'' rants and complaints from Members of Congress and their staff. But he always behaved professionally and always worked for what he thought was right. Rob's knowledge and experience will not be easily filled. But more importantly, there will not be another Rob Cogorno in this institution. Yes, there will be other staffers who will fill his role, but Rob cannot be replaced. The House is losing one of its own--someone who loves and respects this institution; someone who not only believes in the ideals that make up the Democratic party but also believes in fairness for all who make up this body; and someone who has worked every single day to make our country and this world a better place. Rob--you will be missed, but you won't be forgotten. I appreciate what you've done for this institution and for the Nation, and I thank you for your hard work and dedication. Good luck in the next phase of your professional life.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, last year the House did its job and passed a fully funded farm bill with important improvements in the food stamp and TEFAP programs. The Senate, unfortunately, was not so responsible. Now that the farm bill negotiations are under way, we hear that reducing funding for food stamps and food banks is on the table. Mr. Speaker, this farm bill should not be negotiated on the backs of the hungry. Feeding hungry people is never wrong, but taking food out of their mouths is, and that's what a reduction in the House-passed domestic nutrition title would do. Mr. Speaker, we must draw a line in the sand and say enough is enough. House farm bill negotiators must stand up to the Senate and say, ``Not this time.'' The recently passed stimulus package does not include food stamp provisions, even though economists across the political spectrum agree that food stamps are one of the best ways to stimulate the economy. And now food stamps may be cut below the House-passed levels? We can and must do better. I submit for the Record a letter signed by 153 Democrats to the chairman of the Agriculture Committee urging him to hold the line and insist on the House-passed nutrition title in his negotiations. January 30, 2008. Hon. Colin C. Peterson, Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Peterson: We want to thank you and the Members of the Agriculture Committee for your hard work on H.R. 2419, the Farm, Nutrition and Bioenergy Act of 2007. We appreciate how well you balanced the needs of farmers and consumers in the legislation. One of the key reasons for our support for the bill is the inclusion of a strong nutrition title that addresses the needs of the tens of millions of Americans, including many children and working families, who struggle against hunger by investing in and strengthening the Food Stamp Program. This bill also provides needed long-term support to our nation's food banks. As you know, hunger is getting worse in America while the costs of food, housing and utilities are rising. We have a responsibility to help low- and middle-income families as they face these challenges. The Farm Bill is a safety net that protects people from going hungry; it represents one of the single most important opportunities we have this year to address the needs of disadvantaged children, struggling working families, seniors and people with disabilities in `` our communities. We will be doing a disservice to anyone who must rely on these programs if we acquiesce to provisions that ultimately deny hungry Americans food in their time of need. New investments in the nutrition title are long overdue. The average food stamp benefit is a mere $1 a person a meal. The $10 minimum benefit has been stuck at the same level for 30 years. The $2,000 limit on assets for most food stamp households has not changed in two decades. And the shortfall in TEFAP commodities purchases is leaving many food bank shelves empty. It is vital that the conference agreement secure permanent funding at no less than the House-passed levels for the food stamp and TEFAP programs, and we strongly urge to include these improvements in the conference report. We commend you for the important improvements included in the nutrition title of the House-passed bill. While there are also many improvements in the nutrition title of the Senate- passed bill, there is a profound and very troubling difference between the House and Senate nutrition titles. The House bill would make these provisions permanent law while, under the Senate bill, all the major benefit improvements would terminate after 2012. Simply, this means that these important policy improvements would return to today's law, resulting in a major reduction in benefits to more than 10 million recipients. Should these improvements sunset in 2013 and return to the 2008 levels, more than 300,000 low-income people would be cut off from food stamps altogether. We should be working to end hunger in America. We think you would agree that a final conference agreement that sunsets and underfunds improvements in the nutrition title would be unacceptable. Again, we thank you for your commitment to the issues surrounding the people in our country who rely on programs like Food Stamps and TEFAP. We strongly urge the conference report to include permanent funding at no less than the House-passed levels for the food stamp and TEFAP programs. We look forward to working with you to maintain all of the critical improvements in these programs in the final Farm Bill. Sincerely, McGovern, James; DeLauro, Rosa; Woolsey, Lynn; Lee, Barbara; Solis, Hilda; Kilpatrick, Carolyn Cheeks; Moore, Dennis; Green, Al; Lewis, John; Filner, Bob; Moore, Gwen; Crowley, Joe; Neal, Richard; Grijalva, Raul; Maloney, Carolyn; Kildee, Dale; Nadler, Jerry; Jackson-Lee, Sheila; Kennedy, Patrick; Markey, Ed; Ellison, Keith; Capps, Lois; Towns, Ed; McDermott, Jim; Watt, Mel; Johnson, Hank; Becerra, Xavier; Hare, Phil; Shea-Porter, Carol; Arcuri, Mike; Tauscher, Ellen; Jefferson, William; Wu, David; Sutton, Betty; Frank, Barney. Davis, Danny; Allen, Tom; Cuellar, Henry; Gonzalez, Charles; Carnahan, Russ; Christensen, Donna; Waters, Maxine; Guitierez, Luis; Clarke, Yvette; Hinchey, Maurice; Serrano, Jose; DeFazio, Peter; Hirono, Mazie; Ryan, Tim; Clay, William Lacy; Schakowsky, Jan; McNulty, Mike; Weiner, Anthony; Brown, Corrine; Berman, Howard; Jones, Stephanie Tubbs; Doyle, Mike; Butterfield, G.K.; Olver, John; Michaud, Michael; Courtney, Joe; Davis, Susan; Levin, Sander; Matsui, Doris; Yarmuth, John; Murphy, Chris; Fattah, Chaka; Jackson, Jesse; Slaughter, Louise; Doggett, Lloyd; Schiff, Adam; Stark, Pete; Loebsack, Dave; Lynch, Stephen; Langevin, Jim; Oberstar, James; Rush, Bobby; Meek, Kendrick. Rothman, Steven; Berkley, Shelly; Miller, Brad; Wynn, Al; Kaptur, Marcy; Lowey, Nita; Welch, Peter; Thompson, Bennie; Farr, Sam; Hinojosa, Ruben; Sestak, Joe; Udall, Tom; Engel, Elliot; McCollum, Betty; Norton, Eleanor Holmes; Cummings, Elijah; Wilson, Charles; Pastor, Ed; Ortiz, Solomon; Murphy, Patrick; Miller, George; Delahunt, William; Sanchez, Linda; Sires, Albio; Larson, John; Baldwin, Tammy; Reyes, Silvestre; Wexler, Robert; Watson, Diane; Hodes, Paul; Honda, Michael; Velazquez, Nydia; Braley, Bruce; Price, David; Cardoza, Dennis; Napolitano, Grace; Larsen, Rick; Inslee, Jay; Pallone, Frank; Dingell, John; McNerny, Jerry; Tsongas, Niki; Scott, Bobby. Cohen, Steve; Gillibrand, Kirsten; Van Hollen, Chris; Murtha, John; Andrews, Rob; Cleaver, Emanuel; Brady, Robert; Conyers, John; Sanchez, Loretta; Sherman, Brad; Roybal-Allard, Lucille; Costello, Jerry; Lofgren, Zoe; Walz, Tim; Sarbanes, John; Hooley, Darlene; Bishop, Sanford; DeGette, Diana; Hall, John; Holt, Rush; Bishop, Tim Payne, Donald Pascrell, Bill Eshoo, Anna Higgins, Brian McCarthy, Carolyn; Davis, Artur; Schwartz, Allyson; Shuler, Heath; Costa, Jim; Castor, Kathy; Waxman, Henry.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, our economy is at a crossroads. Low- and middle-income families are struggling to make ends meet. Rising food, energy, and housing prices combined with slow job creation and lower wages are straining our economy. The Federal Reserve continues to act, but it is clear that Congress must enact a temporary, targeted, and timely economic stimulus package. The American economy needs a quick stimulus, and low- and middle-income Americans need swift action as our economy works through these difficult times. I rise to commend the bipartisan leadership of Speaker Pelosi and Leader Boehner who, along with President Bush, crafted an economic stimulus package that will not only provide the assistance our economy needs, but also will provide a helping hand to the American families currently struggling with the slowing economy. It is refreshing to see Republicans and Democrats come together and put partisanship aside and develop this critical legislation together. The American people should be proud of this effort, and I am pleased to have supported this important first step earlier today. Mr. Speaker, while important, the stimulus package this House voted on today is simply a first step in the road toward stimulating our economy. Speaker Pelosi deserves incredible credit for negotiating the inclusion of a refundable tax rebate that will be delivered to anyone earning $3,000 or more and the inclusion of a $300 per-child rebate. Again, this is a good start. Yet there are millions of Americans who will not benefit from this current stimulus package because they do not file income taxes. Any American who has exhausted or will exhaust their unemployment will not receive the help they need. States struggling with higher health care costs will be forced to balance their budgets on the backs of low- income individuals because there is no Medicaid assistance included in this package. And most importantly, a temporary extension of the food stamp program is sorely missing from this economic stimulus package. Experts across the political and ideological spectrum agree that we must develop a plan that helps the most vulnerable people and households and that allows currency to flow. Former Reagan economic adviser, Martin Feldstein; former Clinton Treasury Secretary, Lawrence Summers; the Congressional Budget Office; economists at Goldman Sachs; and the chief economist at Moodys.com all agree that food stamps give the biggest bang for the buck and should be part of an economic stimulus. According to the Congressional Budget Office: ``The vast majority of food stamp benefits are spent extremely rapidly. And because food stamp recipients have low income and few assets, most of any additional benefits would probably be spent quickly.'' Administrative costs of such an increase are negligible, meaning that the majority of this stimulus will go directly into the economy. A 10 percent temporary increase in food stamps would result in an increase of almost 50 cents per day per person or $14 per month in the food stamp benefit. That may not seem like much, but an extra 50 cents a day can make the world of difference for someone struggling to feed themselves. More importantly, a temporary increase in food stamp benefits would generate $1.73 in economic activity for every dollar in cost, and we know that a temporary increase in food stamps can be delivered quickly and will be spent right away. Mr. Speaker, this bipartisan economic stimulus package is not perfect. But as I said earlier, it is a good first step. The Senate has a chance to make some improvements in this bill, most notably targeted and temporary increases in food stamps and unemployment insurance. I, for one, hope the United States Senate acts responsibly by including these important programs in their version of the stimulus package. It is critical that this stimulus package move quickly, but it is just as critical that it include stimulus that jump- starts the economy and gives assistance to those who truly need it. And if the Senate includes funding for these critical programs, I strongly urge all my colleagues to support it, and I urge President Bush to then sign it into law. It is the right thing to do for our economy, and it is the right thing to do for the millions of low-income Americans who will not benefit from this stimulus package as it is currently written.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, for the purpose 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. General Leave