Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, as of today, 3,893 of our bravest men and women have lost their lives in Iraq. Tens of thousands more have been wounded. They have lost limbs, lost their sight and suffered severe brain injuries. We have spent half a trillion tax dollars, none of it paid for. When is enough enough? When will this Congress finally reflect the will of the American people and begin to bring our men and women in Iraq home to their families? I hope it is today. I think it can be today. As I mentioned earlier, Madam Speaker, in today's Washington Post the U.S. military has found that the strongest point of agreement among all Iraqis across all sectarian and ethnic groups is the belief that the United States' military invasion of their country is the primary root of the violent differences among them and that the departure of ``occupying forces,'' their words, is the key to national reconciliation. Madam Speaker, I include today's Washington Post article for the Record. [From washingtonpost.com, Dec. 19, 2007] All Iraqi Groups Blame U.S. Invasion for Discord, Study Shows (By Karen DeYoung) Iraqis of all sectarian and ethnic groups believe that the U.S. military invasion is the primary root of the violent differences among them, and see the departure of ``occupying forces'' as the key to national reconciliation, according to focus groups conducted for the U.S. military last month. That is good news, according to a military analysis of the results. At the very least, analysts optimistically concluded, the findings indicate that Iraqis hold some ``shared beliefs'' that may eventually allow them to surmount the divisions that have led to a civil war. Conducting the focus groups, in 19 separate sessions organized by outside contractors in five cities, is among the ways in which Multi-National Force-Iraq assesses conditions in the country beyond counting insurgent attacks, casualties and weapons caches. The command, led by Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, devotes more time and resources than any other government or independent entity to measuring various matters, including electricity, satisfaction with trash collection and what Iraqis think it will take for them to get along. The results are analyzed and presented to Petraeus as part of the daily Battle Update Assessment or BUA (pronounced boo- ah). Some of the news has been unarguably good, including the sharply reduced number of roadside bombings and attacks on civilians. But bad news is often presented with a bright side, such as the focus-group results and a November poll, which found that 25 percent of Baghdad residents were satisfied with their local government and that 15 percent said they had enough fuel for heating and cooking. The good news? Those numbers were higher than the figures of the previous month (18 percent and 9 percent, respectively). And Iraqi complaints about matters other than security are seen as progress. Early this year, Maj. Fred Garcia, an MNF-I analyst, said that ``a very large percentage of people would answer questions about security by saying `I don't know.' Now, we get more griping because people feel freer.'' Iraqi political reconciliation, quality-of-life issues and the economy are largely the responsibility of the State Department. But the military, to the occasional consternation of U.S. diplomats who feel vastly outnumbered, has its own ``mirror agencies'' in many areas. Officers in charge of civil-military operations, said senior Petraeus adviser Army Col. William E. Rapp, ``can tell you how many markets are open in Baghdad, how many shops, how many banks are open . . . We have a lot more people'' on the ground. On Iraqi politics, ``we have four to six slides almost every morning on `Where does the Iraqi government stand on de-Baathification legislation?' All these things are embassy things,'' Rapp said. But Petraeus is interested in ``his `feel' for a situation, and he gets that from a bunch of different data points,'' he added. Even though members of the military ``understand the limitations'' of polling data, Rapp said, ``subjective measures'' are an important part of the mix. In July, the military signed a contract with Gallup for four public opinion polls a month in Iraq: three nationwide and one in Baghdad. Lincoln Group, which has conducted surveys for the military since shortly after the invasion, received a year- long contract in January to conduct focus groups. Outside of the military, some of the most widespread polling in Iraq has been done by D3 Systems, a Virginia-based company that maintains offices in each of Iraq's 18 provinces. Its most recent publicly released surveys, conducted in September for several news media organizations, showed the same widespread Iraqi belief voiced by the military's focus groups: that a U.S. departure will make things better. A State Department poll in September 2006 reported a similar finding. Matthew Warshaw, a senior research manager at D3, said that despite security improvements, polling in Iraq remains difficult. ``While violence has gone down, one of the ways it has been achieved is by effectively separating people. That means mobility is limited, with roadblocks by the U.S. and Iraqi military or local militias,'' Warshaw said in an interview. Most of the recent survey results he has seen about political reconciliation, Warshaw said, are ``more about [Iraqis] reconciling with the United States within their own particular territory, like in Anbar. . . . But it doesn't say anything about how Sunni groups feel about Shiite groups in Baghdad.'' Warshaw added: ``In Iraq, I just don't hear statements that come from any of the Sunni, Shiite or Kurdish groups that say `We recognize that we need to share power with the others, that we can't truly dominate.' According to a summary report of the focus-group findings obtained by The Washington Post, Iraqis have a number of ``shared beliefs'' about the current situation that cut across sectarian lines. Participants, in separate groups of men and women, were interviewed in Ramadi, Najaf, Irbil, Abu Ghraib and in Sunni and Shiite neighborhoods in Baghdad. The report does not mention how the participants were selected. Dated December 2007, the report notes that ``the Iraqi government has still made no significant progress toward its fundamental goal of national reconciliation.'' Asked to describe ``the current situation in Iraq to a foreign visitor,'' some groups focused on positive aspects of the recent security improvements. But ``most would describe the negative elements of life in Iraq beginning with the `U.S. occupation' in March 2003,'' the report says. Some participants also blamed Iranian meddling for Iraq's problems. While the United States was said to want to control Iraq's oil, Iran was seen as seeking to extend its political and religious agendas. Few mentioned Saddam Hussein as a cause of their problems, which the report described as an important finding implying that ``the current strife in Iraq seems to have totally eclipsed any agonies or grievances many Iraqis would have incurred from the past regime, which lasted for nearly four decades--as opposed to the current conflict, which has lasted for five years.'' Overall, the report said that ``these findings may be expected to conclude that national reconciliation is neither anticipated nor possible. In reality, this survey provides very strong evidence that the opposite is true.'' A sense of ``optimistic possibility permeated all focus groups . . . and far more commonalities than differences are found among these seemingly diverse groups of Iraqis.'' Madam Speaker, the Iraqi people themselves firmly believe that reconciliation will not happen until we leave. If the Iraqi people want us to leave and a majority of the Iraqi Government wants us to leave and a majority of the American people want us to leave, then why on Earth are we still staying? As I have said on a number of occasions today, what is contained in the underlying bill is a blank check. There are no restrictions on the tens of billions of dollars that we are going to give the President in support of his Iraq policy. There is no conditionality. There are no timetables for withdrawal. There is nothing. This is a blank check. We are into the fifth year of this war, and after all that we have seen, after all that we have been told that has turned out not to be true, it seems unbelievable to me that this Congress would vote for yet another blank check. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this latest blank check, which essentially is in support of an endless war in Iraq, and vote ``no'' on the underlying bill. I ask for support of the rule. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, as I said earlier, I have no problem with the rule. I do have a problem with the underlying bill, which provides the President with another blank check in support of his Iraq war policy, but I stated I think very clearly my concerns about that. Other than a few closing remarks, I am going to reserve my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 893.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 893 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I withdraw the resolution.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, let me just respond to the gentleman from Texas by saying he is entitled to his own opinions, but he is not entitled to make up the facts. The facts are that the difference between this Congress under the Democratic majority and under the previous Congress under the Republican majority is they left Washington before their work was done. They kicked all their work onto the Democratic Congress that was elected last November. They didn't do their job. If the Congress could be sued for malpractice, they would have been sued for malpractice. The bills that we are dealing with today the House of Representatives passed in a timely manner, all of the appropriations bills, as we were supposed to do. We did it, and they were good bills, and I commend Chairman Obey for his work on those bills. We did that in spite of all the obstructionism and resistance from the Republicans in this House. Unfortunately, because of the Senate rules, an individual Member, and in the case of the Senate, the Senate minority leader, was successful in slowing down the process and preventing conference committees from meeting and preventing the Senate from considering certain bills. Now they can be proud of that. That is just obstructionism. That is not doing the people's business. But the bottom line is that we are here today dealing with an omnibus appropriations bill to get the people's business done; not to kick the ball down the field and dump it on next year's Congress. It is to do it now. One other thing, Madam Speaker, and that is one of the major differences with the new Democratic majority is that we have helped undo some of the damage that the Republicans have done to domestic spending over the years. Because of the Democratic majority and our ability to reorder priority, education is better off today than it would be if the Republicans were in control. Medical research, there is more money for medical research to find lifesaving drugs and to find cures to disease because the Democrats made that a priority, over the Republican objections. Our veterans are getting a better deal today. Under the Democratic majority, there is the largest single-year increase in veterans health in the history of the Veterans Administration. Those are the things that we have done. Today, we are considering a Senate addition to what we did in the House, which I have an objection to, and that is the funding for the war in Iraq. The Republicans, while they were in control, gave the President a blank check; no accountability, no questions asked, nothing. And here we are, the fifth year into this war, with no end in sight, and there are some of us who believe the time has come to call the President to account, to start the process of bringing our troops home so they can be reunited with their families. So there's a huge difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Etheridge.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, if I can inquire if the gentleman from Florida has additional speakers. I will reserve my time at this point.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, H. Res. 893 provides for consideration of two measures, an amendment to the omnibus appropriations bill to provide funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and a continuing resolution. Each measure is debatable for 1 hour. The continuing resolution is necessary to keep the government open and running while the omnibus bill is processed and sent to the White House for the President's signature. Madam Speaker, while I have no problem with the rule that is before us, I cannot support the underlying funding for Iraq. The tens of billions in new money for the war in Iraq has no timetables for withdrawal, no limitations, no requirements that the Iraqi Government make progress towards reconciliation, no benchmarks, no conditionality, nothing. Madam Speaker, this is a blank check. The new money in this bill represents one cave-in too many. It is an endorsement of George Bush's policy of endless war. It is stunning that so many have gone along for so long asking no questions, giving this President everything he wants. After years of Bush ineptitude, how dare this Congress provide another blank check for this administration. No weapons of mass destruction, a constantly changing rationale for our occupation, benchmarks for the Iraqi Government that never get met, no democracy, no respect for human rights, no reconciliation, a government plagued with corruption, and no end in sight. All this, Madam Speaker, and some of my colleagues still say, ``stay the course.'' Our brave men and women in uniform have done their job. So many have sacrificed, and far too many have made the ultimate sacrifice. They have been successful in some areas of Iraq in quelling some of the violence, essentially providing the chance, the window of opportunity for the Iraqi Government to move ahead with efforts for reconciliation. The response of the Iraqi Government has been to do nothing. No reconciliation. Isn't our responsibility, as Members of Congress, to raise questions? Shouldn't we put pressure on the Iraqi Government to do more? And shouldn't we put pressure on our own government to not be such a cheap date? Don't we owe our soldiers whom we put in harm's way better than acquiescence to a Commander in Chief who is incapable of ever admitting error? Madam Speaker, there is no military victory to be had in Iraq. To the extent that this awful situation becomes less awful depends on political progress, something the Maliki government doesn't want to do, and something our own leaders seem willing to keep putting off. I want more, Madam Speaker, I expect more, for the sacrifice our troops have made. Quite frankly, the status quo is not worth one more American dollar or one more drop of American blood. I am sick to my stomach when I think of the hundreds of billions of dollars that we have already spent in Iraq while we nickel and dime our own people at home. None of this war is paid for. It is all borrowed money. It's all on the backs of our kids. It's all debt that is being bought up every day by China. Madam Speaker, I long for the day when we have a President who will threaten a veto on a bill that fails to provide all our people with health care, or that fails to adequately fund education for our children. Instead, we have a White House that engages in blackmail tactics: Give me what I want on Iraq, with no strings attached, or I'll shut the government down. Those who defend the status quo say that we need to give the President whatever he wants so we can assure ``victory.'' ``Victory'' at the beginning of this war was ridding Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction. When we found that there were none, the definition of ``victory'' changed. In fact, over the last 5 years, the definition of ``victory'' has changed several times. For me, the closest thing to victory is ending this war, getting an Iraqi Government that puts national reconciliation above its own self- interest and getting our troops out of that country and home to their families where they belong. I believe the surest way to get that type of victory is setting a firm timetable for the U.S. occupation of Iraq to end. It will change the dynamic, and it will force the Iraqi Government to embrace, rather than avoid, reconciliation. In fact, in today's Washington Post, the U.S. military has found that the strongest point of agreement among all Iraqis across all sectarian and ethnic groups is the belief that the U.S. military invasion of their country is the primary root of the violent differences among them and that the departure of ``occupying forces,'' their words, is the key to national reconciliation. Madam Speaker, the Iraqi people themselves firmly believe that reconciliation will not happen until we leave. If the Iraqi people want us to leave, and a majority of the Iraqi Government want us to leave, and a majority of the American people want us to leave, then why on Earth are we staying? Let me also state, Madam Speaker, what ``victory'' is not. It is not allowing this President to kick the ball down the field and dump this war on the next President of the United States. That is called ``passing the buck,'' and that is what we will be doing if we approve this new Iraq money. One final observation. The war in Iraq has not only cost us dearly in terms of human life and treasure, it has also cost us in terms of our standing in the world. We have lost the support and the respect of so many who have looked to us as a force for what is good, decent and positive in world affairs. I warn my colleagues that our lost prestige and standing is also a threat to our national security. Madam Speaker, I want my country back. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 893.

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. I yield myself such time as I may consume. General Leave

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 893 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the District of Columbia for yielding me the time and for her support for this bill and for so many other important issues. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4220, the Federal Food Donation Act of 2007. Let me begin by commending the sponsor of this legislation, Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson. Congresswoman Emerson is a true champion for the hungry in this country. She's a friend who doesn't just talk about hunger, but is a leader in the effort to fight to end hunger in this country. It's not an easy effort, and I know that she has to work to convince people around this country and in this very building that there are people who still go without food in this great Nation of ours. She's a shining example of someone who puts partisanship aside and works towards a goal that should be achievable. So I want to thank Congresswoman Emerson for her steadfast leadership on this issue and for introducing this important legislation. I also want to thank Chairman Waxman and Ranking Member Davis and the other members of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee for their quick and thorough work on this bill. Mr. Speaker, hunger is getting worse in America. More than 35.5 million people went hungry in the United States in 2006, an increase of more than 300,000 from 2005. There are many in Congress who talk about the booming economy and economic growth, but it is clear that millions of Americans are not benefiting from this so-called economic expansion. The costs of living in America are rising. Energy costs are increasing, food prices continue to go up, and the housing crisis is straining the budgets of middle- and lower-income families. The reality is that many Americans are walking a fiscal tightrope where any economic change or family crisis, like an unexpected illness or job loss, could force people to go without food for a period of time. That we are even talking about any person going hungry in the richest and most prosperous Nation in the world is an embarrassment, and we should all be ashamed for not doing more to combat hunger here at home. H.R. 4220 is a good step in the fight against hunger. Unfortunately, it's not going to end hunger in America, but it will provide one more way to fight hunger. As has already been described, the Federal Food Donation Act would require executive agencies who serve food on their premises to encourage the donation of excess food to nonprofit organizations. Such food rescue efforts can be particularly useful to the more than 43,000 soup kitchens and food pantries on the front lines battling hunger. The Oversight and Government Reform Committee broadened the scope of this bill, and I'm especially pleased the bill was expanded to include the Department of Defense. The reality is that food costs are increasing; and America's food banks, the safety net of our anti-hunger system, is straining to meet this need. According to a new report released today by the U.S. Conference of Mayors, requests for food increased an average of 12 percent over the last year. Yet at the same time, a recent Washington Post article reports that the Capital Area Food Bank, the emergency food system for Washington, DC, had only 230,000 pounds of food on its shelves, down from 570,000 pounds at this time last year. Nationwide, food donations to food banks are expected to fall short of the need by 15 million pounds. Mr. Speaker, we need to do more to address and ultimately end hunger in America. The Federal safety net developed over the years, the Food Stamp program, Meals on Wheels, school meals and the emergency food system, is working but it is strained. Private organizations like Catholic Charities and the Nation's food banks, just to name two examples, are filling the gaps where they can. It is time we commit to ending hunger once and for all. It's time that we dedicate the resources of our great Nation to ending this scourge. The Federal Food Donation Act is a good first step, and I'm pleased that the House is acting on it today. Mr. Speaker, I insert into the Record at this point two articles documenting the shortage of food for the hungry in this country and one article announcing the U.S. Conference of Mayors report on hunger and homelessness. [From Newsweek, Nov. 26, 2007] Blessed Is the Full Plate (By Anna Quindlen) One of the most majestic dining rooms in New York City is in the Church of the Holy Apostles. After the landmark building was nearly destroyed by fire in 1990, the Episcopal parish made the decision not to replace the pews so that the nave could become a place of various uses. There are traditional Sunday services, of course, and the gay and lesbian synagogue on Friday evenings. And every weekday more than a thousand people eat lunch at round tables beneath 12- foot stained-glass windows and a priceless Dutch pipe organ. ``You can't get more Biblical than feeding the hungry:' says the Rev. William Greenlaw, the rector. Holy Apostles has fed the hungry for 25 years now without missing a single weekday, including the morning after the fire, when the church lay in ruins, still smoldering, and 943 meals were served by candlelight. There's a queue on Ninth Avenue by midmorning; sometimes tourists think there's a wait for some exclusive New York happening until they notice the shabby clothes, piles of shopping bags and unshaven faces that are the small unmistakable markers of poverty. The poor could be forgiven for feeling somewhat poorer nowadays. The share of the nation's income going to the top 1 percent of its citizens is at its highest level since 1928, just before the big boom went bust. But poverty is not a subject that's been discussed much by the current administration, who were wild to bring freedom to the Iraqis but not bread to the South Bronx. ``Hunger is hard for us as a nation to admit,'' says Clyde Kuemmerle, who oversees the volunteers at Holy Apostles. ``That makes it hard to talk about and impossible to run on.'' At Holy Apostles the issue is measured in mouthfuls. Pasta, collard greens, bread, cling peaches. But in this anniversary year the storage shelves are less full, the pipeline less predictable. The worst emergency food shortage in years is plaguing charities from Maine to California, even while the number of those who need help grows. The director of City Harvest in New York, Jilly Stephens, has told her staff they have to find another million pounds of food over the next few months to make up the shortfall. ``Half as many pantry bags'' is the mantra heard now that the city receives half the amount of emergency food than it once did from the Feds. In Los Angeles 24 million pounds of food in 2002 became 15 million in 2006; in Oregon 13 million pounds dwindled to six. It's a cockamamie new math that denies the reality of hunger amid affluence. There are many reasons why. An agriculture bill that would have increased aid and the food-stamp allotment has been knocking around Congress, where no one ever goes hungry. Donations from a federal program that buys excess crops from farmers and gives them to food banks has shrunk alarmingly. Even the environment and corporate efficiency have contributed to empty pantries: more farmers are producing corn for ethanol, and more companies have conquered quality control, cutting down on those irregular cans and battered boxes that once went to the needy. What hasn't shrunk is the size of the human stomach. At lunchtime at Holy Apostles, Ernest is hungry, his hand bandaged because he got in a fight, even though he is sober now and has his own place in the Bronx. Janice is hungry, too, she of the beautiful manners and carefully knotted headscarf, who sleeps on the train on winter nights and walks with a cane since being hit by a car. There are the two veterans, both Marines, with the raddled faces and slightly unfocused eyes of those who sleep outdoors, which means mostly always being half-awake, and that group of Chinese women who don't speak English, and the Muslim couple who sit alone. Mostly it's single men at Holy Apostles. Some are mentally ill, and some are addicts, and to repair their lives would take a lot of help. But at the moment they have an immediate problem with an immediate answer: pasta, collard greens, bread, cling peaches. This place is a blessing, and an outrage. ``We call these people our guests,'' says the rector. ``They are the children of God.'' That's real God talk. The political arena has been lousy with the talk-show variety in recent years: worrying about whether children could pray in school instead of whether they'd eaten before they got there, obsessing about the beginning of life instead of the end of poverty, concerned with private behavior instead of public generosity. There's a miracle in which an enormous crowd comes to hear Jesus and he feeds them all by turning a bit of bread and fish into enough to serve the multitudes. The truth is that America is so rich that political leaders could actually produce some variant of that miracle if they had the will. And, I suppose, if they thought there were votes in it. Enough with the pious sanctimony about gay marriage and abortion. If elected officials want to bring God talk into public life, let it be the bedrock stuff, about charity and mercy and the least of our brethren. Instead of the performance art of the presidential debate, the candidates should come to Holy Apostles and do what good people, people of faith, do there every day--feed the hungry, comfort the weary, soothe the afflicted. And wipe down the tables after each seating. Here's a prayer for every politician: pasta, collard greens, bread, cling peaches. Amen.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I would just like to respond to the gentleman. He talks about process. Let's compare where we are this year compared to where we were last year, when the Republicans had the majority in this Congress. What they did is they avoided doing their work and, instead, they passed a continuing resolution that took us into the following year, and they ran out of town. They left Washington before they had finished their job for the year. That is the process that they had. What we are doing right now is trying to bring up the omnibus bill today, and we would have liked to have done it differently, but unfortunately there are Republicans in the House and there are Republicans especially in the Senate who chose to be obstructionists rather than to be partners in trying to get something done. And so here we are. And so I would say that we're not leaving here until we get our job done. And that's very, very different from the way they conducted business. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, H. Res. 873 waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII, which requires a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported from the Rules Committee. This waiver would apply to any rule reported on December 17 that provides for consideration of the omnibus appropriations bill or the Senate-amended energy bill. Madam Speaker, the Rules Committee has reported a separate rule for the energy bill, but the House is not expected to take up the Senate-amended energy bill tonight. With passage of this rule, the House will move one step closer to passing the omnibus appropriations bill that will fund the government outside of the Department of Defense, which we have already funded. It's an important bill, and although it is not everything I wanted, I believe it deserves to be approved in its current form. Madam Speaker, Democrats took over the majority in the House and the Senate with a promise of a new direction for America. The House moved an aggressive and positive agenda forward, including the timely consideration and passage of the fiscal year 2008 appropriations bills. Unfortunately, the President and the Republican leadership of the House and the Senate are still stuck in the past. Instead of working with Democrats in moving towards a new direction, the Republican leaders in the House and Senate did everything they possibly could to delay and obstruct the process until we had no option but to bring an omnibus appropriations bill to the floor. In fact, the Senate minority leader, Senator McConnell, actively blocked consideration of these appropriations bills. Why would the Republican leadership block these bills from even being considered in the Senate? The answer, Madam Speaker, is that they were playing politics. Instead of allowing important funding for our roads and bridges, funding for the sick and the hungry, funding to protect our food system and funding for homeland security, the Republican leadership decided to block these funds to try to score political points. So when my friends on the other side of the aisle complain that we are not considering these bills individually, remember that they were the ones that prevented us from doing just that. That's unfortunate but it's reality. The reality is that because of Senate rules, it takes 60 votes to order pizza, let alone to consider and vote on important pieces of legislation. All told, the Democratic majority wanted to pass appropriations bills that were fully paid for and that increased spending by $22 billion over the President's request. The President and his allies here in Congress said, No, no, that's too much. That's too much for education, too much for health care, too much for medical research, too much for veterans. The irony, of course, is that the President continues to ask for hundreds of billions of dollars for the war in Iraq, none of it paid for. Billions to patch the alternative minimum tax, none of it paid for. Some of my Republican friends, as I read in the press, are now proclaiming a great ``victory'' because the omnibus bill meets the President's top-line number. Let's take a look at that. Because of the Republicans, there will be fewer medical research grants at NIH than Democrats would have liked. ``Congratulations,'' I guess. Because of Republicans, there will be fewer cops on the beat than Democrats would have liked. ``Job well done,'' I suppose. Because of the Republicans, there is less funding for important education programs that Democrats would have liked. ``Mission accomplished,'' my Republican friends. The fact is that this Republican so-called ``victory'' is hollow at best. And I've been wracking my brain all day, but I just can't remember the Republican campaign commercial from last fall that said, ``Vote for me and I'll follow the President off the cliff and spend billions more in Iraq while I cut domestic priorities.'' Maybe that commercial did exist and it just didn't run in Massachusetts. Despite all of that and despite the Republican obstruction, Chairman Obey has put together a bill that makes important new investments in our national priorities. More money than the President wanted for medical research and rural health. More money than the President wanted for K-12 education. More money than the President wanted for renewable energy and energy efficiency. More money than the President wanted for homeland security, for local law enforcement, for our crumbling infrastructure. And perhaps most importantly, more money than the President wanted and requested for our veterans. All of that changed, all of that progress because of this new Democratic majority. Madam Speaker, unlike last year, we are getting our work done. We are completing our appropriations bills, not kicking the can down the road with another continuing resolution, which is what the Republicans did last year when they controlled both Houses of Congress and the White House, I should add. And the same-day rule before us takes us one step closer to making that happen. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 873.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 873 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Florida has a flair for the dramatic and held up the omnibus appropriations bill that is before us and says he doesn't know what is in it. Let me just highlight a few of the things that are in it that I think people need to know. In that bill there is more money than the President and the Republicans wanted for medical research and for rural health care. And I am grateful for that. And the American people are grateful for that. In that bill, there is more money than the President and the Republicans wanted for K-12 education. All throughout this country, we hear from teachers, principals and superintendents about how No Child Left Behind is not funded. We hear about the need for more funding for special education. There is more money in this bill for K-12 education than the Republicans and the President of the United States wanted, and I am grateful for that. There is more money than the President and Republicans wanted for renewable energy and energy efficiency. We need to get serious about dealing with global warming. We need to get serious about energy independence, but to do so requires that we fund it. For years, we have heard the Republicans talk the talk but not walk the walk. There is more money in this bill than the Republicans and the President wanted. There is more money in this bill than the Republicans and the President wanted for homeland security, for local law enforcement. I mean, if the Republicans had their way, they would be cutting the COPS programs. The fact of the matter is, homeland security also means homeland security, and it means making sure that our cities and our towns have the law enforcement necessary to protect the people who live there. There is more money in this bill than the President wanted and the Republicans wanted for our crumbling infrastructure. Our roads and our bridges are falling apart all across the country. I come from Massachusetts. We have bridges that are older than some of the other States in this country. Our aging infrastructure is in deep need of repair, and it requires funding to repair that infrastructure. There is more money than the Republicans and the President wanted for our infrastructure. There is more money than the President wanted for our veterans. In fact, there is the largest increase in veterans health benefits in the history of the Veterans Administration in this bill. My friends say, Whoa, that's a bipartisan issue, the Republicans wanted it too. Where have you been for 12 years when you were in the majority? It has taken a Democratic majority to pass a bill that provides the largest single- year increase in veterans health benefits in the 77-year history of the VA. There is more money here to help deal with the fact that so many of our people in our country are food insecure, are hungry. Higher food costs mean we need to help those who need help. There is more money for the supplemental nutrition program for women, infants and children, the WIC program. More money than the Republicans and the President wanted. There is more money for the commodities supplemental food program which is important to improving nutrition, more money than the President and the Republicans wanted. Madam Speaker, let me also say, let me remind people why we are where we are at. This House did all of what was required of it to do. We passed all of our appropriations bills. The problem is that we had to fight tooth and nail to pass them in the House here because of Republican obstructionism in the House. But Republican obstructionism in the Senate reached a new level where they actually blocked not only bringing appropriations bills to the floor, but actually moving to conference on a number of occasions. So here we are not content to do what the Republicans did last year, which is to do nothing, to kick the ball down the court, dump all their problems on another Congress and go home. We are going to finish this year's business. And we are going to do so in a way that maybe is not everything that I would have liked to have seen done, but nonetheless represents a dramatic departure from the priorities of the previous Congress. Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule. The material referred to previously by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows: Amendment to H. Res. 873 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida At the end of the resolution, add the following: Sec. 2. That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the House shall, without intervention of any point of order, consider the resolution (H. Res. 479) to amend the Rules of the House of Representatives to provide for enforcement of clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. The resolution shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution and any amendment thereto 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; (2) the amendment printed in section 3, if offered by Representative Boehner of Ohio or his designee, which shall be in order without intervention of any point of order or demand for division of the question, shall be considered as read and shall be separately debatable for forty minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Sec. 3. The amendment referred to in section 2 is as follows: Strike all after ``That'' and insert the following: (1) Clause 9(a) of rule XXI is amended by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (3), striking the period at the end of subparagraph (4) and inserting ``; or'', and adding the following at the end: ``(5) a Senate bill held at the desk, an amendment between the Houses, or an amendment considered as adopted pursuant to an order of the House, unless the Majority Leader or his designee has caused a list of congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, and limited tariff benefits in the bill and amendments (and the name of any Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner who submitted the request for each respective item in such list) or a statement that the proposition contains no congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits to be printed in the Congressional Record prior to its consideration.''. (2) Clause 9(c) of rule XXI is amended to read as follows: ``(c) As disposition of a point of order under paragraph (a), the Chair shall put the question of consideration with respect to the proposition. The question of consideration shall be debatable for 10 minutes by the Member initiation the point of order and for 10 minutes by an opponent, but shall otherwise be decided without intervening motion except one that the House adjourn.''.

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I want to thank the gentlelady from New Hampshire for yielding me the time, and I appreciate her work on behalf of veterans and their families. I would also like to recognize my colleague from Pennsylvania, Representative Altmire, for championing this important legislation. Mr. Speaker, a little over a month ago we celebrated Veterans Day and were reminded of the men and women who have served our Nation and continue to wear our country's uniform. These brave men and women have volunteered for service with the assurances of health care and benefits for them and their families. But despite entering into this solemn pledge, far too often our government has unfairly shortchanged our veterans. With our readiness levels considered to be reaching all-time lows, our military has been attracting recruits via monetary incentives. The Department of Defense has been offering signing bonuses to soldiers in order to entice candidates for longer enlistment periods. But in too many cases, our wounded warriors are having their payments cut short or, in some instances, entirely taken away. Soldiers who sustain a combat-related injury and cannot serve out the entirety of their enlistment period are being forced to return part of or all of their bonuses. That is flat wrong. This is a shameful practice that is unjust and in no way reflects how our Nation's heroes ought to be treated. H.R. 3793, the Veterans Guaranteed Bonus Act, remedies this unfair practice by requiring the DOD to uphold their part of the deal and fully pay all bonuses to veterans medically discharged due to combat- related wounds. Injuries sustained on the battlefield which prevent a soldier from completing their enlistment period should not be treated like some type of breach of contract. It is reprehensible to ask our wounded warriors to pay back any bonuses afforded them, as they have already sacrificed an amount for which no price can be named. Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support of H.R. 3793 and encourage my colleagues to support its passage.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee (Mr. Obey).

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