Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 579 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 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. Mr. Speaker, I just want to respond to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) who spoke before and wanted to know where the Democrats were on this issue. We didn't know we had a problem until George Bush's Supreme Court made this awful decision on this case, and now what we're trying to do today is fix it. We thought, quite frankly, that reasonable judges, rational judges, would interpret the law accordingly and believe that the discrimination against women who were being paid less than men was, in fact, wrong. And so here we are today to try to fix this mess. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, 3 years ago the House declared the situation in Darfur a genocide. Since then thousands of people have been killed and 2.5 million displaced. And the situation on the ground grows worse. Attacks against humanitarian workers and African Union peacekeepers are increasing. I was in eastern Chad in April. Over a quarter of a million Darfur refugees live in camps along the Chad-Sudan border. I talked with many of these men, women, and children. I heard about family members slaughtered; villages burned; children who perished from heat, exhaustion, and hunger in the desperate walk to find safe refuge. I was there when the violence of Darfur spilled over into Chad. Janjaweed militias attacked two Chad villages, overnight 8,000 people displaced. I watched the U.N. and NGOs provide emergency food, water, shelter, and medical care in the middle of nowhere under a blistering sun. I say to my colleagues, enough is enough. I say to my colleagues, never again. The time to end the killing in Darfur is now. [From the UN News Service, July 25, 2007] Violence Impedes Relief Effort in Darfur, UN Food Agency Warns Condemning a sharp escalation in attacks on humanitarian staff and relief convoys in Sudan's Darfur region, the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) warned today that violence is hampering its ability to deliver assistance to millions of hungry people there. ``In the last two weeks, nine food convoys have been attacked by gunmen across Darfur,'' said Kenro Oshidari, WFP Sudan Representative. ``WFP staff and contractors are being stopped at gunpoint, dragged out of their vehicles and robbed with alarming frequency.'' Mr. Oshidari called on all parties to the conflict in Darfur to guarantee the safety of humanitarian workers so that the UN food agency and other aid organizations can continue helping Sudanese who rely on outside assistance for survival. ``These abhorrent attacks, which target the very people who are trying to help the most vulnerable in Darfur, must be brought under control,'' he added. So far this year, 18 WFP food convoys have been attacked by gunmen and four of WFP's light vehicles carjacked. Six WFP vehicles, including trucks and light vehicles, have been stolen and 10 staff, including contractors, have been either detained or abducted. The Darfur operation is the agency's biggest, employing some 790 staff who feed more than two million people every month. WFP, which also contracts commercial truck companies to haul food into the region, plans to distribute up to 450,000 metric tons of food in Darfur this year at a cost of about half a billion dollars. A lack of security has prevented WFP from reaching 170,000 people in June in what the agency termed in a news release a ``sizeable increase from the lowest point last March when 60,000 could not be reached.'' As a result of convoy attacks in recent weeks, the road between Nyala, the capital of South Darfur state, and the town of Kass, has been declared a ``no-go'' area for UN staff, while in North Darfur, food dispatches to the town of Kabkabiya have been affected. UN security personnel say attacks on vehicles are now the number one security concern for the aid community in Darfur, according to WFP, which cited a ``recent and deeply troubling trend is that staff are being abducted when their vehicles are stolen, giving robbers time to get away before the alarm is raised.'' To date, all WFP staff have been released, although some were injured and hospitalized.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank my colleague from California for yielding me the time and for his work on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the underlying legislation. My colleagues, tonight millions of people here in the United States and around the world, many of them children, will go to bed hungry. They may not be in this Chamber, but they must remain in our thoughts. This bill does not go as far as I would like in tackling hunger, but it represents real progress and real reform. I want to commend Chairman Peterson and his colleagues on the committee for their hard work, but I also want to thank Speaker Pelosi and Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, both of whom have worked personally and passionately with us over the last few days to make improvements to the nutrition programs in this bill. The bill before us begins to reverse some of the terrible damage done to nutrition programs over the past several years. For too long, hungry people were an afterthought in this Congress. For too long, people on food stamps fell further and further behind as the Republican Congress searched high and low for more ways to cut taxes for rich people. Those days have come to an end, Mr. Speaker. It has not been easy to find funding for these vital programs, and here's why. Unlike the Republicans, we are actually paying for the bills we pass. It would have been easy to put the cost of this bill on the national credit card. Instead, the increases to the nutrition program in this bill are paid for in this bill. That is an enormous and welcome development. Further, the bill includes increased guaranteed funding for the George McGovern-Robert Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition program. McGovern-Dole has a proven track record of fighting hunger and promoting education by providing meals to chronically hungry school-age children in the world's poorest countries. Where the McGovern-Dole program is offered, enrollment and attendance rates increased significantly, especially for girls. Providing food at school is a simple but effective method to get children into school, improve literacy, and help break the cycle of poverty. These programs demonstrate America's generosity and goodwill, and they reflect our deepest moral values. They promote our national security, and they offer an alternative to children who otherwise might be recruited by groups that provide meals in return for becoming child soldiers or for attendance at extremist schools that serve as a breeding ground for hatred and violence. By making the funding guaranteed, we can stop the practice of beginning a school feeding program only to cut it off when Congress doesn't appropriate enough money, because the only thing more cruel than not feeding a hungry child is feeding a hungry child for a while and then stopping. As I said, Mr. Speaker, the bill before us does not do as much as I would like. And I will keep fighting, through the amendment process and beyond, to increase funding for hunger and nutrition programs here at home and around the world. This is not the beginning of the end. It's the end of the beginning. This is a start. Mr. Speaker, hunger is a political condition. We have the resources to end hunger. What we need is the political will. Let us rededicate ourselves to helping those who need help the most. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this bill.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, last week the U.S. House of Representatives unanimously approved H. Res. 426, recognizing 2007 as the Year of the Rights of the Internally Displaced in Colombia. The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner on Refugees, UNHCR, praised its passage, noting that ``It is the first time the U.S. Congress has singled out forced displacement in Colombia as one of the worst humanitarian crises on the American continent.'' More than one-third of the over 3 million internally displaced people in Colombia are Afro-Colombians or indigenous peoples. On July 11, 2007, the Association of Internally Displaced Afro-Colombians, AFRODES, issued a statement welcoming the action taken by the U.S. Congress in passing H. Res. 426 and bringing attention to the plight of Colombia's internally displaced. I encourage my House colleagues to reflect on the words of Colombia's Afro-Colombian community and I welcome the opportunity to submit the statement of AFRODES into the Record of the debate on H. Res. 426. [July 11, 2007] Internal Displacement in Colombia and Its Impact in Afro-Colombian Territories and Communities In Colombia, a chronic and sustained humanitarian and human rights crisis persists, due to the ongoing presence of the causes of forced displacement, and the limited and contradictory security policies that the national government has adopted to stop the exodus of the population. Under the government of President Alvaro Uribe, military confrontations between the public security forces and illegal armed groups have intensified; during President Uribe's first term, there were 8,001 such confrontations, an increase of 149 percent over the 3,211 which occurred during the previous government of President Andres Pastrana. This shows there is a greater military presence in the country, but that does not necessarily imply that conditions for the security of the civilian population are being met. In other words, there are no guarantees for the security of internally displaced communities to return to their regions of origin. Defining the dimensions of the problem of internal displacement should be a priority, in order to define the conditions faced by victims of the internal armed conflict and thereby establish peace, justice and reparations. The System of Information on Forced Displacement and Human Rights (SISDHES), which has been operated by CODHES since 1995 and which takes into account data from the Episcopal Conference of Colombia from 1985-1994, indicates that around 3,832,527 people have been displaced during the last 20 years in Colombia (from January 1, 1985 through June 30, 2006). The United Nations just recently stated in a June 2007 report that the number of internally displaced in Colombia has reached 3,000,000. According to the U.N., out of the 13 million internally displaced persons (IDPs) their organization attended to over the past year, three million-- or 23 percent of the world total--are Colombian. This according to the U.N. brings Colombia to the undesirable first position of the greatest number of IDPs in the world. Yet the Colombian government reports only 1,877,328 IDPs for the period from January of 1995-June of 2005. Due to the lack of sufficient political will on the part of the government to attend to the IDP population, the Colombian Constitutional Court has delivered two rulings with the purpose of protecting the rights of the internally displaced: Ruling C-370 of 2005, relating to Law 975 of 2005, through which the Constitutional Court defines the scope of the rights and guarantees due to victims of the internal armed conflict under the system of transitional justice. The Constitutional Court also issued Decree 218 of 2006, following Ruling T-025 of 2004 which declared the state of things to be unconstitutional in Colombia and ordered the government to develop a public policy designed to guarantee the effective protection of the rights of the internally displaced. This decree examines the completion of the orders established through decrees No. 176, 177 and 178 of 2005; its principal conclusion is that the situation of unconstitutionality has yet to be overcome, while the necessary measures are not being taken to do so. Finally, the Civil Commission for the Evaluation if Completion if Ruling T-025 and the Public Policy if Forced Displacement was formed as a plural and diverse coalition of civil society dedicated to overcoming displacement, at the same time that new protests and proposals for strengthening organizations of the internally displaced are being formed by the affected population. Decree 218 illustrates the structural problems with the lack of a public policy for forced displacement and opens the possibility for greater public debate to examine the report presented by the government on September 13, 2006, such as the use of rights-based progress indicators. We would also like to applaud the 42 co-sponsors of H. Res. 426 and in particular our Afrodescendant brother Donald Payne and humanitarian James McGovern for raising the visibility of the plight of the many internally displaced Afro-Colombians to the U.S. Congress. In the last decade, especially during the last 5 years, internal displacement has intensified in areas of the Pacific Coast, in the departments of Narino, Valle del Cauca, Cauca and Choco in the collectively titled lands of Afro-Colombians. The particular characteristics of these displacements show them to be planned and deliberate, in order to cause communities to vacate their territories. This is corroborated by the study carried out by AFRODES and Global Rights in 2005, which illustrates that 61.73 percent of those people with collective titles to land in 50 municipalities with Afro-Colombian populations have been displaced from their territories. Most alarming is that there currently exists no public policy for attention to Afro- Colombian displaced populations, while the humanitarian crisis in their territories continues to worsen. Finally, as an organization of internally displaced persons and in the name of many more who have lost their territories in Colombia, we appreciate and commend the efforts undertaken by the U.S. Congress and the international community to raise visibility of this humanitarian tragedy, specifically through H. Res. 426 in the U.S. House of Representatives. By working in partnership with the United States, the United Nations and many religious and non-governmental organizations, our communities can once again live with dignity and respect for their rights.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 2956, the Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act. Mr. Speaker, I believe this House ought to voice its gratitude to the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Skelton, for bringing before this House a thoughtful, responsible bill that outlines what we must do next in Iraq. The bill clearly notes that our uniformed men and women have carried out and completed their mission for which they were authorized by Congress. The search for weapons of mass destruction is over. There were none, not a single one. The regime that put Iraq in an impossible international position no longer exists. So it's time that we draw down our troops from Iraq and require this administration to clearly define what the troop requirements and costs will be for the next phase of U.S. involvement in Iraq, a far more limited mission to root out al Qaeda and protect our diplomatic personnel inside Iraq. The bill also promotes the kind of active diplomacy with Iraq's neighbors necessary for achieving a more lasting climate of stability in Iraq and throughout the region. Much, much more, Mr. Speaker, must be done. I expect to see stronger legislation in September, but this bill puts us on the right path. For 5 long, deadly years, this Congress has done nothing but rubber- stamp a tragically flawed policy. It is shameful. Whatever the cause the President and many Members of Congress thought they were pursuing in Iraq, it is lost. Political leaders inside Iraq appear incapable of putting national interest ahead of sectarian and personal agendas. Iraqi security forces operate more like sectarian militias. And despite their best efforts, the additional military forces we have poured into the Baghdad region have not been able to change the equation. Over 3,600 of our troops have lost their lives to this battle. Thousands more have been wounded. It is wrong, Mr. Speaker, simply wrong to ask them to continue to sacrifice their lives and their limbs for this failed policy. The war in Iraq is breaking the back of our military. It is causing severe damage to the Federal budget to the tune of $10 billion each month, and causing grave harm to the future fiscal health of our Nation. It continues to undermine our most important political, diplomatic, military and strategic alliances. It saps our ability to focus on global terrorism and to safeguard our own people. And it has contributed to the chaos inside Iraq. Mr. Speaker, it is past time for change. And while President Bush keeps scorning deadlines and promising breakthroughs that never come, it is clear that he lacks the vision, the wisdom or the courage to chart a new course. It is frighteningly clear that the President plans, instead, to stay the course and dump this mess on the next President. It is time for Congress to step up to the plate and change direction in Iraq. It is time for every Member of this House to work together to draw down our forces and bring our troops home to their families and their communities. For too long Congress has been complicit, and the American people are frustrated, and they are angry. We don't need more studies or commissions. We don't need more excuses. We don't need more delay. Too many lives are being lost. What we need is for Members of Congress to make a choice, to stand up and be counted. Will you continue to rubber- stamp the current disastrous policies in Iraq or will you vote for change? We must act now, Mr. Speaker. This is simply too important to wait any longer. Too many lives are on the line. All of us, no matter how we originally voted on the war, share in the responsibility in what is happening in Iraq. All of us, by not voting to change course, are responsible for sending so many of our brave men and women into a civil war where far too many of them have been killed. If the President of the United States will not respect the will of the American people and end this war, then Congress must. [From the Los Angeles Times, July 11, 2007] U.S. Troop Buildup in Iraq Falling Short (By Julian E. Barnes and Ned Parker) Baghdad.--In the Ubaidi neighborhood in the eastern part of this city, American soldiers hired a local Iraqi to clean the Porta-Potties at their combat outpost. Before the man could start, members of the local Shiite militia threatened to kill him. Today, the Porta-Potties are roped off, and the U.S. soldiers, who could not promise to protect their sewage man, are forced to burn their waste. As part of the Bush administration's troop ``surge'' strategy, the U.S. unit here had moved into an abandoned potato chip factory hoping to push out the militia, protect existing jobs and provide stability for economic growth. Instead, militia members stymied development projects, cut off the water supply and executed two young Iraqi women seen talking to U.S. soldiers, sending a powerful message about who really controls Ubaidi's streets. In the next few days, the Bush administration is scheduled to release a preliminary assessment of its overall Iraq strategy. Officials may point to signs of progress scattered across the country: a reduction in death-squad killings in Baghdad, agreements with tribal leaders in Al Anbar province, offensives north and south of the capital. President Bush defended his strategy Tuesday, demanding Congress give his administration more time and insisting that America can ``win this fight in Iraq.'' To underscore his request, Bush sent top aides to lobby lawmakers on Capitol Hill. But as the experience of the troops in Ubaidi indicates, U.S. forces so far have been unable to establish security, even for themselves. Iraqis continue to flee their homes, leaving mixed areas and seeking safety in religiously segregated neighborhoods. About 32,000 families fled in June alone, according to figures compiled by the United Nations and the Iraqi government that are due to be released next week. U.S. forces have staged offensives to push insurgents out of some safe havens. But many of the insurgents have escaped to new areas of the country, launching attacks where the U.S. presence is lighter. And there has been no sign of any of the crucial political progress the administration had hoped to see in Iraq. U.S. commanders are painfully aware that they are running out of time to change those realities. Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq, has made several efforts to slow the clock in Washington. Each time, it has sped up. The full complement of the ``surge'' arrived in Iraq last month, bringing the total to 28,500 additional troops. Military officers originally hoped to have until 2008 before they had to render a verdict on the strategy. Then the Washington timeframe shrank to September. Now, it is shrinking further, with Congress demanding answers even sooner. Supporters of the troop buildup insist that small steps could grow into larger and more long-term successes if lawmakers are patient. ``Right now we are three weeks into this. It's not like flipping a light switch,'' said a military officer in Baghdad, expressing the frustration of many commanders. ``Time has to be given for things to work.'' Commanders point to Ramadi, the capital of Al Anbar province, as a showcase for the kind of results the military wants from the current strategy. Once a battlefield, the city is now largely peaceful, calm enough that in March, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki was able to pay his first official visit. But military officers stress that it took about nine months of sustained effort to make Ramadi a relatively pacified city. And with its volatile mix of Sunni and Shiite Muslims, Baghdad presents a far more complex challenge than all-Sunni Ramadi. The interim progress report that Bush promised to release this week is likely to emphasize the success the military has had in killing Sunni militants in the ``Baghdad belts,'' the cities and towns that dot the major rivers and highways leading to the capital. In recent weeks, the newly arrived U.S. forces have been focused on fighting members of Al Qaeda in Iraq, a militant Sunni group made up of Iraqis and foreign fighters. Top generals say the strategy is crucial to securing Baghdad. Only by controlling the routes into the capital, and denying militants safe havens, can the U.S. and Iraqi militaries keep out the car bombs that stoke sectarian violence inside the capital. But leading Iraqis are less sure of the strategy. Mahmoud Othman, a Kurdish member of the Iraqi parliament, said the U.S. approach may be successful at weakening Al Qaeda in Iraq. But he said Americans would not be able to solve Iraq's sectarian conflict or stop clashes between armed groups in Baghdad neighborhoods. ``The surge has an important effect in fighting Al Qaeda,'' the independent politician said. ``On the Sunni-Shiite conflict, it hasn't had any effect. . . . Extremist Shiites and Sunnis are fighting each other. The Americans can't stop this.'' U.S. officials have made little, if any, progress with their persistent calls for Iraqi officials to take steps toward reconciliation between Shiites and Sunnis. Key administration officials, most prominently Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Vice President Dick Cheney, have visited Iraq to push for passage of an oil-revenue sharing law, provincial elections and reform of rules barring members of the former ruling Baath Party from government jobs. But the Iraqi government is bogged down by fighting among Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish parties. It is unclear whether the oil law, the one piece of benchmark legislation still given hopes for passage before September, will reach a vote any time soon. The number of death-squad killings in the capital, one sign of sectarian divisions, is down from earlier this year. But the number remains roughly at the level seen after the 2006 bombing of Samarra's Golden Mosque, which served as a catalyst for the extreme sectarian violence. In Baghdad, the number of bodies found dumped in the streets dropped to 540 last month from 830 in January. Some American officers say those numbers could rise again. And others say that the decline may simply represent the depressing reality that most Baghdad neighborhoods are now segregated, meaning there are fewer people left for death squads to kill. Maj. Gen. Joseph Fil, Jr., the commander of U.S. forces in Baghdad, said that American troops at the end of June controlled about 42% of the city's neighborhoods, up from 19% in April. But to many Iraqis, that is little comfort. ``The Americans do not make me feel safe,'' said Amin Sadiq, a 30-year-old Shiite worker in the Ghadeer neighborhood of east Baghdad. ``When you hear the speeches of the top U.S. military leaders, you think that everything is ideal and perfect and Iraq will be better. But when you see how the U.S. soldiers behave, I really feel I should not trust the leaders.'' The American military has helped bring a tense truce in some areas, but has not re-integrated once-mixed neighborhoods. The western Baghdad neighborhood of Ghazaliya, once a prosperous mixed middle-class area, was riven by sectarian violence in 2006. It is now divided between Shiites in the northern end and Sunnis in the south, with the U.S. military stuck in the middle, trying to keep the peace. ``Last year, things were bad. This year is worse than before,'' said a man in his 50s who identified himself as Qais Qaisi. The presence of Iraqi and American security forces means that Sunnis cannot fight back against the Shiite militias, which have the tacit support of the Iraqi army unit in the area, Qaisi said. But he nevertheless voiced concern about a possible American pullout. ``If the multinational forces withdraw, there will be very bloody sectarian battles,'' he said. Military officers routinely say that improving the economy is a prerequisite to improving security. And U.S. forces, by putting up barriers and controlling traffic, have been able to reopen some marketplaces that had been targeted by suicide bombers. Although that has allowed some neighborhood commerce, success with other projects has proved more elusive. The Pentagon is working to reopen state-owned factories and has identified several dozen that can be renovated and restarted. But that work is slow, and many residents say they see few improvements in their neighborhoods. Although U.S. forces have been able to overcome militia threats and start small neighborhood projects such as installing streetlights, they are not able to initiate larger undertakings. ``We aren't doing anything meaningful,'' said one mid-level noncommissioned officer. ``Where are the real projects? We aren't offering these people enough safety, or money, or jobs.'' Amid the political setbacks and continuing violence, however, there are signs of relative calm in some areas. Earlier this year, the streets of Baghdad were desolate at sunset. Now, in places, there are signs of life. In Yarmouk, a neighborhood in west Baghdad, 18-year-old Ahmed Shakir used to see bodies on the street every day. Snipers fired from hidden perches and gunmen clashed with U.S. and Iraqi soldiers. But last month, after weeks of U.S. patrols, his neighborhood started to feel safe--safe enough for Shakir to stay outside on the basketball court until 8:30 p.m. ``It is usually me and three of my friends, we always go play basketball,'' he said. ``Now we have U.S. and Iraqi patrols roaming the streets every day. If they continued doing this, things will remain better. If not, then it will get worse for sure.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I want to thank my colleague from Texas (Ms. Jackson- Lee) for her generous words and for yielding me the time and for all of her work on behalf of human rights. I want to thank the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Lantos, for his leadership throughout the years on behalf of those who have lost their homes, their livelihoods, and their land through violence or natural disaster. I would also like to recognize the ranking member for her work in educating Members of Congress about the suffering of refugees and the internally displaced. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 426, which shines a light on Colombia's more than 3 million internally displaced people, or IDPs, a number second only to Sudan. In 2005, the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees described the IDP situation in Colombia as one of the most invisible humanitarian crises in the world. This is a crisis that the government of Colombia cannot handle alone. Earlier this year, the UNHCR, the Colombian Catholic Church, and the Consultancy for Human Rights and Internal Displacement jointly declared 2007 as the Year of the Rights of the Internally Displaced People in Colombia. This resolution commends this initiative and encourages the United States and the Colombian governments and other donor nations to place greater priority on providing the necessary resources to aid and protect Colombia's internally displaced so that they might rebuild their lives. Mr. Speaker, an estimated 3.8 million people have been displaced inside Colombia over the past two decades. This is approximately 8 percent of Colombia's total population. Currently, 200,000 people continue to be internally displaced every year. Almost one-third of these people are Afro-Colombian and indigenous peoples, and with conflict escalating in the regions of Narino and Choco, this number is likely to increase. A large majority, like displaced people all around the world, are women and children. Very few can return to their original homes. Many are displaced multiple times, finding no safety anywhere. It comes as no surprise then that Colombia's IDPs are poorer and more disenfranchised than the general population. Around three- quarters suffer from lack of food, inadequate shelter, and limited health care and other services. And, sadly, the harsh realities of life faced by the internally displaced are invisible even to most Colombians. They are a forgotten people, a marginalized people. Mr. Speaker, I have traveled to Colombia several times, and on each trip, I have included a trip to internally displaced communities. On my very first trip in 2001, I went to Barrio Kennedy in the slums of Bogota. The majority of these families are from Tolima. They had been violently displaced by attacks mainly from FARC guerillas. They were rural families used to growing their own food and making a living by farming. In the capital, they were lost. They had no jobs. They couldn't grow their own food. They would get up early in the morning and hang around the trucks that brought in produce for the markets and gather up the food that fell off the trucks into the mud. They picked through the garbage looking for food to eat or items to barter. Alcoholism and domestic violence were rising. They lived in horrible conditions with a growing sense of hopelessness. In 2003, I traveled north to the Department of Sucre. In Sincelejo, I visited the community of Cristo Viene. These families had been violently displaced by paramilitaries from their communities in the mountains of Maria. They had small shacks for shelter. They had organized their teenagers into a group making bracelets and other items to sell in order to give purpose to the young people and generate some income for their community. All the youngest children had the rusty colored hair indicative of malnutrition. Nearly all the infants and toddlers had serious eye disorders or were already blind from vitamin deficiency. They could get access to rudimentary electricity and water, but only if they sold their vote to a corrupt local politician. The Colombian Catholic Church and the Mennonite churches had joined together in their first ecumenical initiative to provide schools of basic humanitarian aid for these people. In 2001 and 2007, I visited IDP communities perched precariously on barren hills next to the municipality of Soacha, on the outskirts of Bogota. On my first visit, I saw a school and a school feeding program, both funded by the United States and carried out by World Vision and the World Food Programme. For these children, these programs were the only stability in an insecure world. Paramilitary and FARC agents roamed freely trying to recruit children into their ranks. A mother came up to me and thanked the United States for supporting the school and free meals. She told me that if these programs didn't exist, her 11-year-old son would have gone into one of the armed groups just so he could get something to eat. When I returned to Soacha this March, little had changed. If anything, things were worse. Over the past 6 years, violence has forced hundreds of thousands out of the countryside. Many ended up in Bogota, settling in the Soacha slum. They were from all over the country. So- called landlords are charging them outrageous rents when IDPs build themselves a shack. Children can't walk to school without fear of being assaulted, robbed or raped. The price of water was several times higher than that of regular Bogota residents. IDP community leaders working with Colombian and international NGOs were doing their best to address the community's problems but lacked the necessary resources. And the local officials of Soacha were struggling to meet basic needs. Madam Speaker, I am proud that the United States has always targeted resources for IDP communities, and the recent House-passed Foreign Operations appropriations bill increases that funding. Madam Speaker, H. Res. 426 is a bipartisan bill, and I want to thank my colleague, Congressman Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania, for joining me in introducing this legislation. It is supported by Refugees International, Catholic Relief Services, the Mennonite Central Committee, Jesuit Refugee Services USA, the Jesuit Conference of the United States, Lutheran World Relief, the International Rescue Committee, Mercy Corps and several other national organizations. Madam Speaker, I commend the UNHCR, the Colombian Catholic Church and CODHES for bringing attention to this humanitarian crisis facing Colombia's internally displaced. I hope that there will be a renewed effort by the United States and the world community to help these people. I urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 426. July 10, 2007. Dear Honorable Members of Congress: As organizations concerned with refugees and internally displaced persons around the globe, we write to express our support for House Resolution 426 regarding the situation of internally displaced persons in Colombia. More than 3.8 million people have been internally displaced over the past twenty years, and high levels of displacement continue to occur. Despite efforts by the international community and the Colombian government, internally displaced persons lack access to basic health care, shelter, adequate nutrition, secure employment, and educational opportunities. In many cases, they also lack basic protection from human rights violations and continued displacement. The Colombian Catholic Church, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and Colombian nongovernmental organization established an initiative to declare 2007 the Year of the Rights of Internally Displaced Persons in Colombia in order to call attention to a dire humanitarian situation which has been largely invisible both internationally and within Colombia. This resolution expresses support for this initiative and recognizes certain advances by the Colombian government such as establishing landmark legislation. The resolution calls for the international community, U.S. and Colombian governments to prioritize attention to help Colombia's internally displaced persons to ``rebuild their lives in a dignified, safe, and sustainable manner.'' We encourage you to help bring attention to this pressing problem of internal displacement in Colombia by supporting House Resolution 426. Kenneth H. Bacon, President, Refugees International; Rev. Kenneth Gavin, S.J., National Director, Jesuit Refugee Service/USA; Sean Callahan, Executive Vice President, Overseas Operations, Catholic Relief Services; Gimena Sanchez-Garzoli, Senior Associate for Colombia and Haiti, Washington Office on Latin America; Rebecca Phares, Director, Public Policy and Advocacy Lutheran World Relief; Adam Isacson, Director of Programs, Center for International Policy. Marino Cordoba, Charo Mina Rojas, AFRODES USA; Theo Sitther, Legislative Associate for International Affairs, Mennonite Central Committee, U.S., Washington Office; Lisa Haugaard, Executive Director, Latin America Working Group; Kimberly Stanton, Country Representative, Colombia, Project Counselling Services; Barbara Gerlach, Colombia Liaison, United Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank my colleague from Ohio for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, my home State of Massachusetts is famous for the quality of its colleges and universities. In the Third Congressional District alone, which I represent, there are 15 colleges and universities. Some of these schools specialize in the fields of medicine, nursing, pharmacy, and health sciences. Others are community and other 2-year colleges that provide education and training for students to earn associate degrees, transfer to 4-year institutions, or upgrade their skills and experience in order to become more productive in their chosen careers. We are privileged to have such internationally recognized colleges as Clark University, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, and Holy Cross College in my district. I have many public and private institutions, such as Worcester State College and Assumption College, which provide students with a well-rounded advanced education. These schools attract a great diversity of students to central Massachusetts each year, over 30,000 in the Worcester area alone. H.R. 2669, the College Cost Reduction Act, will help these students realize the dream of a college education without mortgaging their futures in the process. Mr. Speaker, this bill overhauls the student aid system and provides debt relief in order to make college more affordable for students and their parents. As others have noted, it is the single largest investment in higher education since the GI Bill. And it provides these new benefits at no new cost to the taxpayer, reducing excess subsidies that have been paid by the Federal Government to lenders in the student loan industry. But this bill also supports and protects the 90 percent of student loan lenders that are nonprofit lenders or smaller community-based lenders. H.R. 2669 recognizes their unique mission, putting all their profits back into students and into our communities. The College Cost Reduction Act provides a fee reduction for these lenders, making them better able to compete with large national lenders and serve students and their families. The small lenders that make up the Massachusetts Educational Financing Authority, for example, provide students and families with straightforward information and advice on how to apply for and choose a college financing plan. Along with free financial aid seminars and advice, they also provide low-cost loan programs for parents and students. H.R. 2669 will allow these types of lenders to better serve the students and families of central Massachusetts by making their loans even more affordable. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Miller and the members of the Education and Workforce Committee for bringing us a bill that provides such substantial increases for the Pell Grant program, initiatives to help control colleges costs, increased funding for Perkins loans, greater support for the critical Upward Bound program, and restructuring the way in which students repay their loans. If we look at the Pell Grant alone, over 87,000 Massachusetts students will benefit over the next 5 years from an estimated $357 million in additional Pell Grant funding. Mr. Speaker, the challenge of affordable education affects not just the poor, but the middle class as well. Parents and students alike have been frustrated by the lack of action by the previous congressional leadership. I love when I hear my colleague from Washington say we all share the goal of helping struggling students be able to afford a college education. Well, students don't need our sympathy. They don't want us to feel their pain. They want us to do something. And for years they haven't done anything. Well, today we are going to do something. Times have changed. And today we will pass a bill that will make higher education a reality for countless students and contribute greatly to a brighter economic future. We will not be able to compete in a global economy unless we have a well-educated workforce, and we need to invest in our students, and this bill does it. I urge bipartisan support for the bill.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of David F. Dunham who has retired after 35 years of public service with the Social Security Administration. Mr. Dunham began working with the United States Postal Service in 1971 while attending the University of Massachusetts-Lowell. In 1972 he began work with the Social Security Administration at the Western Program Service Center. Later that year he transferred to Worcester, Massachusetts as a Claims Representative. He continued working in the Worcester area until his retirement. He was promoted to Operations Supervisor in 1984. In addition to his work as Operations Supervisor, Mr. Dunham is recognized as one of the most gifted and talented instructors in the Boston Region. He taught numerous Service Representative and Claims Representative classes and many of his students are now successful Social Security Administration employees and supervisors assigned throughout New England. During his years of hard work, Mr. Dunham has come to exemplify public service. This spirit can be seen outside of his professional life as well. Mr. Dunham has participated in several local motorcycle rides for charity and is involved with activities and outreach programs with his church. It is a great pleasure to offer him my sincere congratulations for his accomplishments and retirement. Madam Speaker, I am certain that the entire House of Representatives joins me in congratulating David Dunham for his outstanding service with the Social Security Administration and in wishing him a happy and healthy retirement with his partner Rick, his daughter Jerusha, and son-in-law Sean.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the time has come for us to leave Iraq. The President intends to continue his war until he leaves office and let the next President clean up his mess. White House advisers debate how to buy more time. Over 3,600 U.S. troops have been killed. Hundreds, perhaps thousands more, will be killed while we wait for this President to end this war. Thirty thousand U.S. troops wounded. Will that number double while we wait for this President to end his war? Thousands of Iraqi men, women, and children dead, $10 billion each month squandered. Are we ready to spend $200 billion more? On Sunday, the New York Times laid out why, how, and when the U.S. should end this war. It pulled no punches about how ugly the aftermath might be. It was a hard and honest statement of where we stand right now and where we need to go. Mr. Speaker, Congress must act. It is time to end this war. [From the New York Times, July 8, 2007] The Road Home It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit. Like many Americans, we have put off that conclusion, waiting for a sign that President Bush was seriously trying to dig the United States out of the disaster he created by invading Iraq without sufficient cause, in the face of global opposition, and without a plan to stabilize the country afterward. At first, we believed that after destroying Iraq's government, army, police and economic structures, the United States was obliged to try to accomplish some of the goals Mr. Bush claimed to be pursuing, chiefly building a stable, unified Iraq. When it became clear that the president had neither the vision nor the means to do that, we argued against setting a withdrawal date while there was still some chance to mitigate the chaos that would most likely follow. While Mr. Bush scorns deadlines, he kept promising breakthroughs--after elections, after a constitution, after sending in thousands more troops. But those milestones came and went without any progress toward a stable, democratic Iraq or a path for withdrawal. It is frighteningly clear that Mr. Bush's plan is to stay the course as long as he is president and dump the mess on his successor. Whatever his cause was, it is lost. The political leaders Washington has backed are incapable of putting national interests ahead of sectarian score settling. The security forces Washington has trained behave more like partisan militias. Additional military forces poured into the Baghdad region have failed to change anything. Continuing to sacrifice the lives and limbs of American soldiers is wrong. The war is sapping the strength of the nation's alliances and its military forces. It is a dangerous diversion from the life-and-death struggle against terrorists. It is an increasing burden on American taxpayers, and it is a betrayal of a world that needs the wise application of American power and principles. A majority of Americans reached these conclusions months ago. Even in politically polarized Washington, positions on the war no longer divide entirely on party lines. When Congress returns this week, extricating American troops from the war should be at the top of its agenda. That conversation must be candid and focused. Americans must be clear that Iraq, and the region around it, could be even bloodier and more chaotic after Americans leave. There could be reprisals against those who worked with American forces, further ethnic cleansing, even genocide. Potentially destabilizing refugee flows could hit Jordan and Syria. Iran and Turkey could be tempted to make power grabs. Perhaps most important, the invasion has created a new stronghold from which terrorist activity could proliferate. The administration, the Democratic-controlled Congress, the United Nations and America's allies must try to mitigate those outcomes--and they may fail. But Americans must be equally honest about the fact that keeping troops in Iraq will only make things worse. The nation needs a serious discussion, now, about how to accomplish a withdrawal and meet some of the big challenges that will arise. the mechanics of withdrawal The United States has about 160,000 troops and millions of tons of military gear inside Iraq. Getting that force out safely will be a formidable challenge. The main road south to Kuwait is notoriously vulnerable to roadside bomb attacks. Soldiers, weapons and vehicles will need to be deployed to secure bases while airlift and sealift operations are organized. Withdrawal routes will have to be guarded. The exit must be everything the invasion was not: based on reality and backed by adequate resources. The United States should explore using Kurdish territory in the north of Iraq as a secure staging area. Being able to use bases and ports in Turkey would also make withdrawal faster and safer. Turkey has been an inconsistent ally in this war, but like other nations, it should realize that shouldering part of the burden of the aftermath is in its own interest. Accomplishing all of this in less than six months is probably unrealistic. The political decision should be made, and the target date set, now. the fight against terrorists Despite President Bush's repeated claims, Al Qaeda had no significant foothold in Iraq before the invasion, which gave it new base camps, new recruits and new prestige. This war diverted Pentagon resources from Afghanistan, where the military had a real chance to hunt down Al Qaeda's leaders. It alienated essential allies in the war against terrorism. It drained the strength and readiness of American troops. And it created a new front where the United States will have to continue to battle terrorist forces and enlist local allies who reject the idea of an Iraq hijacked by international terrorists. The military will need resources and bases to stanch this self-inflicted wound for the foreseeable future. the question of bases The United States could strike an agreement with the Kurds to create those bases in northeastern Iraq. Or, the Pentagon could use its bases in countries like Kuwait and Qatar, and its large naval presence in the Persian Gulf, as staging points. There are arguments for, and against, both options. Leaving troops in Iraq might make it too easy--and too tempting--to get drawn back into the civil war and confirm suspicions that Washington's real goal was to secure permanent bases in Iraq. Mounting attacks from other countries could endanger those nations' governments. The White House should make this choice after consultation with Congress and the other countries in the region, whose opinions the Bush administration has essentially ignored. The bottom line: the Pentagon needs enough force to stage effective raids and airstrikes against terrorist forces in Iraq, but not enough to resume large-scale combat. the civil war One of Mr. Bush's arguments against withdrawal is that it would lead to civil war. That war is raging, right now, and it may take years to burn out. Iraq may fragment into separate Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite republics, and American troops are not going to stop that from happening. It is possible, we suppose, that announcing a firm withdrawal date might finally focus Iraq's political leaders and neighboring governments on reality. Ideally, it could spur Iraqi politicians to take the steps toward national reconciliation that they have endlessly discussed but refused to act on. But it is foolish to count on that, as some Democratic proponents of withdrawal have done. The administration should use whatever leverage it gains from withdrawing to press its allies and Iraq's neighbors to help achieve a negotiated solution. Iraq's leaders--knowing that they can no longer rely on the Americans to guarantee their survival--might be more open to compromise, perhaps to a Bosnian-style partition, with economic resources fairly shared but with millions of Iraqis forced to relocate. That would be better than the slow-motion ethnic and religious cleansing that has contributed to driving one in seven Iraqis from their homes. The United States military cannot solve the problem. Congress and the White House must lead an international attempt at a negotiated outcome. To start, Washington must turn to the United Nations, which Mr. Bush spurned and ridiculed as a preface to war. the human crisis There are already nearly two million Iraqi refugees, mostly in Syria and Jordan, and nearly two million more Iraqis who have been displaced within their country. Without the active cooperation of all six countries bordering Iraq--Turkey, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria--and the help of other nations, this disaster could get worse. Beyond the suffering, massive flows of refugees--some with ethnic and political resentments--could spread Iraq's conflict far beyond Iraq's borders. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia must share the burden of hosting refugees. Jordan and Syria, now nearly overwhelmed with refugees, need more international help. That, of course, means money. The nations of Europe and Asia have a stake and should contribute. The United States will have to pay a large share of the costs, but should also lead international efforts, perhaps a donors' conference, to raise money for the refugee crisis. Washington also has to mend fences with allies. There are new governments in Britain, France and Germany that did not participate in the fight over starting this war and are eager to get beyond it. But that will still require a measure of humility and a commitment to multilateral action that this administration has never shown. And, however angry they were with President Bush for creating this mess, those nations should see that they cannot walk away from the consequences. To put it baldly, terrorism and oil make it impossible to ignore. The United States has the greatest responsibilities, including the admission of many more refugees for permanent resettlement. The most compelling obligation is to the tens of thousands of Iraqis of courage and good will--translators, embassy employees, reconstruction workers--whose lives will be in danger because they believed the promises and cooperated with the Americans. the neighbors One of the trickiest tasks will be avoiding excessive meddling in Iraq by its neighbors--America's friends as well as its adversaries. Just as Iran should come under international pressure to allow Shiites in southern Iraq to develop their own independent future, Washington must help persuade Sunni powers like Syria not to intervene on behalf of Sunni Iraqis. Turkey must be kept from sending troops into Kurdish territories. For this effort to have any remote chance, Mr. Bush must drop his resistance to talking with both Iran and Syria. Britain, France, Russia, China and other nations with influence have a responsibility to help. Civil war in Iraq is a threat to everyone, especially if it spills across Iraq's borders. President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have used demagoguery and fear to quell Americans' demands for an end to this war. They say withdrawing will create bloodshed and chaos and encourage terrorists. Actually, all of that has already happened--the result of this unnecessary invasion and the incompetent management of this war. This country faces a choice. We can go on allowing Mr. Bush to drag out this war without end or purpose. Or we can insist that American troops are withdrawn as quickly and safely as we can manage--with as much effort as possible to stop the chaos from spreading.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Vasil and Florence Rucho of West Boylston, MA, on the occasion of their 50th wedding anniversary. Mr. and Mrs. Rucho's life together exemplifies the finest qualities of the institution of marriage, and their commitment to their family, their faith and each other should serve as an example to us all. Vasil married the former Florence George at St. Nicholas Romanian Orthodox Church on June 30, 1957. The young couple met while working at the Table Talk Pie Company in Worcester, MA, and romance soon blossomed. Shortly thereafter, they married and were blessed with two wonderful children, Melanie and Christopher. Despite the demands of raising a young family, Vas and Flo always found time to help others and gave freely to their church, their family and their friends. They never failed to lend a helping hand to a neighbor in need, and were there to celebrate the joyous moments as well as to lessen the burden in times of pain and sorrow. Together Vas and Flo share an extraordinary work ethic and devotion to their family that is altogether too rare in these more modern times. After they were married, Vas continued to work at the Table Talk Pie Company while taking on a second job at the family business, Dian's Flower Shop. Mrs. Rucho was widely known in the close-knit Main South neighborhood as one of the first women to work at the local McDonalds. Her friendly face and warm smile graciously welcomed countless families that came to dine at the restaurant. Despite their rigorous work schedules, Vas and Flo made certain that every summer their family vacationed together with friends on Cape Cod for 2 weeks. Those vacations are fondly remembered by all. In later years as their children married, Vas and Flo became ``Maya'' and ``Papu'' to their five beautiful grandchildren. Their daughter Melanie and her husband Fr. Peter have two children, Nicholas and Alexandra. Their son Christopher and his wife Julie have three sons, Matthew, Brian and William. Family dinners at Vas and Flo's home are a feast to savor. Neighbors and family members alike eagerly look forward to the magnificent array of Christmas decorations adorning their yard each holiday season. For Vasil and Florence, there is no greater joy in life than to be surrounded by their children and grandchildren, especially during the holidays. Madam Speaker, too often in this Chamber we take notice of world leaders and historic events without recognizing the families that are truly the bedrock of America. Vasil and Florence Rucho have together over half a century demonstrated they are one such family. It gives me great pleasure to humbly ask that the United States House of Representatives join me in congratulating Vasil and Florence Rucho on the occasion of their 50th wedding anniversary. I look forward to joining them and the entire Rucho family this Saturday evening, June 30, at a celebration in honor of this tremendous milestone in their remarkable life together.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment to close down the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation. It is time to stop and examine our history so that we can avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. Our relations with our neighbors in Latin America are at their lowest ebb ever. The people of Latin America think the U.S. is more concerned with achieving goals through military means no matter the consequences. They think the U.S. is not concerned with human and democratic rights in Latin America. We need to start winning over the citizens of our planet and show them our desire to bring human rights to everyone. The time has come for our country to cease our support of this Institution, to put down the swords, and instead show our neighbors in Latin America that our actions adhere to our preaching. U.S. assistance has been increasingly weighted towards harsh and ineffective counter- narcotics and military aid. After so many decades of human rights abuses and threats to democracy, why is the U.S. Government still giving so privileged a position to Latin American militaries, such that it maintains a special school in the United States just for them? Our neighbors need assistance for clean water, vaccinations for children, micro-credit, technical assistance for small farmers and small business, shelter for refugees and generous disaster relief builds good will with our neighbors. If we end this Institute once and for all, we will show that the priorities of the United States are with democratic and civil institutions. A more cooperative, less unilateral foreign policy that clearly demonstrates respect for international human rights standards would help the United States regain influence around the world. It is time to sow the seeds of peace; we must stop sowing the seeds of war. As a great Nation and blessed people, we must heed the words of the spiritual--``I am going to lay my burden down, down by the riverside. I ain't gonna study war no more.'' We do not need this school. My colleagues, I urge you to vote in favor of this amendment.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, let me again make a point here that is that last year when we were debating this same issue, an Army officer trained at the School of the Americas murdered a DEA-trained anti- narcotics unit in Colombia. This is still happening every day. We were told a little while ago that everything, we are referring to the distant past. Well, again, I mentioned the Bolivian ombudsman, Mr. Albarracin, who was tortured in Bolivia in 1997, and his torturer, Major Urzagaste, went to WHINSEC in 2002. Again, I am going to keep on saying this. I don't have a problem with training foreign militaries. What I have a problem with is this: the secrecy, the lack of accountability, the lack of transparency. I am going to tell you something. We are going to find out, sooner or later, who some of these people are; and we are going to find out that they are responsible for atrocities. I gave them an example of somebody who was admitted to the school after he had been accused of torture. I mean, where is the vetting process? We need to do much better. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairwoman of the subcommittee, Mrs. Lowey.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. I don't want any more reports. What I want is accountability. I want to know whose going there. I want to know what happens to them when they go back to their country. I want to know their backgrounds before they go to the school. You know, we knew, we found out that 19 of the 26 trigger men who murdered in cold blood six Jesuit priests in El Salvador were graduates of the school because we had access to the names. We don't have access to the names anymore. And no report is going to give us access to the names. We want transparency. We want accountability. There are problems here. We need to address them. That's our job.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. I have great regard for the gentleman from Texas. But my question is, how do you know? Do you track all these people individually? Can you tell me that all these people whose names have been crossed out are pure, that they are following a code of human rights; that they're not guilty of atrocities against their people? That's the point here. I'm not arguing against the U.S. being involved in training programs. What I'm saying is that there's something fundamentally wrong with a training program where everything is secret; where we're told everybody is great, but yet we can't have access to track down the people who go to that school. We need to change that.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I'm not interested in going to visit a school and having hors d'oeuvres and a cocktail. I'm interested in who goes to the school. That's what I'm interested in. I want to follow-up who goes to the school, who's admitted to the school. And we used to be able to have access to that information. And even though the school didn't track the graduates, human rights organizations did. We are now being denied access. I mean, where's the transparency? You all talk about all the great graduates of this school. How do you know when you get this in return? This is not an open, transparent process. Furthermore, more and more countries in Latin America are saying we don't want to have anything to do with this school. Uruguay, Bolivia, Argentina, Costa Rica have all pulled out of the school. They don't want to have anything more to do with WHINSEC. Mr. Chairman, we've heard a great deal today that without the WHINSEC the U.S. would not be engaged in Latin America. Well, with all due respect, the U.S. trains 15,000 or more Latin American military officers and troops each and every year, less than 1,000 of them at the WHINSEC. We are very engaged in Latin American militaries, and none of these other programs carry the negative baggage that the WHINSEC does. We have heard that WHINSEC has trained the future leaders of Latin America. But, again, with all due respect, one of Latin America's problems has been that too many of its national leaders were from the military. We should be spending our time and our efforts on strengthening civilian and democratic institutions. We have heard assertions that that the WHINSEC is transparent and promotes democratic values. But WHINSEC's own actions show those claims to be a lie. What else do you need to see? I mean, what else do you need to see? Now, I suggest that instead of WHINSEC, we should support the model of Argentina. After separating from the WHINSEC last year, Argentina just opened a new military school where civilian, legal and human rights experts will teach every single military officer about the role of the military in a modern democratic state. Mr. Chair, America's reputation with the people of Latin America is at the lowest level ever. Cutting the funding for the WHINSEC will send a powerful message to the people of Latin America who, hopefully, will be the real future leaders of their nations, that the U.S. Congress finally gets it. Mr. Chairman, I would like to just close with a few personal remarks. When I was working for our dear friend and former colleague, Congressman Joe Moakley, six Jesuit priests, their housekeeper, and her 16-year old daughter were murdered in cold blood at the University of Central America in San Salvador. It made me sick to my stomach when I learned that 19 of the 26 soldiers who murdered these priests are graduates of the School of the Americas. These priests were my friends, and I knew them. And over the years, we have raised concerns first about the School of the Americas and then its successor, the WHINSEC. We have asked for transparency. We have called for accountability. We have asked for specific follow-up with the graduates. Let me be perfectly clear. There's a reason why WHINSEC does not share information on its graduates and its teachers. They don't want us to do the follow-up. They don't want us to point out what they should be doing. Passage of this amendment will send a strong signal to Latin America that we do care about human rights. But it will also send a signal to our own military that business as usual is not acceptable. Vote ``yes'' on the McGovern-Lewis amendment. La Paz, Bolivia, June 18, 2007. Dear Honorable James McGovern, I am writing to you in regards to the participation of police Captain Filmann Urzagaste Rodriguez in human rights violations in Bolivia, specifically in relation to his involvement in my kidnapping, detention and torture. The events took place in January of 1997, while I held the presidential seat of the Permanent Assembly for Human Rights of Bolivia (the country's largest non governmental human rights organization). On the morning of January 25th of the aforementioned year I left my residence and hailed a taxi in direction to the University. After traveling approximately 300 meters, the taxi was intercepted by two other vehicles from which a group of men dressed in civilian clothing forced me out of the taxi and dragged me into one of the vehicles. I did not have enough time to count the number of people but I estimate the number to be between 8 to 10 men. Once in the vehicle they proceeded to cover my eyes and forced me to lie face down on the floor of the backseat. The vehicle then drove to the outside of the city, I was able to notice the difference as I felt the dust from the road hitting my face. With the vehicle in motion I was subjected to torture by my kidnappers. I could not see their faces and was unable to identify them. By their actions I concluded that the objective was to physically eliminate me or make me disappear. Nonetheless, during the terrorist operative I noticed a sudden change; I could hear an intensive exchange of communications taking place between the men in the vehicle and another source through hand held transmitters or walkie- talkies. The vehicle made a sharp turn and seemed to head in a direction back towards the city. After approximately two hours I was placed in a closed room, surrounded by silence. After noticing that I couldn't hear anybody breathing close to me I removed the blindfolds and realized that I was in a police holding cell, thus concluding who had carried out the operation, there was no doubt that the police were responsible. Sometime during the night I was taken from the cell and moved to a police administered clinic due to the lesions on my body (I could feel a few broken ribs and I was unable to move my body). Until that point, neither my family nor the other members of the Human Rights Assembly were aware of my whereabouts, but thanks to one of the doctors, whose identity I guard to this day, who was kind enough to contact them over phone on my behalf. Thanks to this information, a lot of people were informed of my whereabouts within the hour. Under international pressure and public scrutiny, the then President of the Republic, Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada, fired the Police Chief. Nonetheless, the government protected the identities of the authors of my kidnapping due to the involvement of Minister Carlos Sanchez Berzain. This is why those responsible have not been brought to justice. The then Captain of the Bolivian Police, Filmann Urzagaste Rodriguez, played a role in the events. This information was obtained through the Bolivian police force, given that at the time the event became public, high commanding police officers began accusing one another. Unfortunately the officer [i.e. Urzagaste] and others benefited by the impunity provided by the powers of the political sphere. This is what I can inform in summary of this particular case. In my condition as the current Defender of the People of Bolivia [i.e. Ombudsman] and a human rights activist I consider that the work your office has been carrying out to obtain the definitive closing of the institution formerly known as the ``School of the Americas'' to be of great importance. Said entity is marked by a sad and shameful history in our continent, it was there that the main protagonists and authors of some of the worst crimes against humanity executed in Latin America received instruction. I send you my support and express my unconditional solidarity in hopes that the legislative authorities of the United Status attend to your request. Sincerely, Waldo Albarracin Sanchez, Defender of the People of Bolivia. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Last Name 2nd Last Name First Name Rank Country Course -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Acevedo............................ De Arbaiza............ Marta................. 1LT.................. El Salvador.......... LDR-4-2 Aleman............................. Molina................ Eduardo............... 1LT.................. El Salvador.......... LDR-4-2 Bolanos............................ Silva................. Luis.................. 1LT.................. Colombia............. LDR-1 Del Cid............................ Diaz.................. Francisco............. COL.................. El Salvador.......... LDR-4-2 Erazo.............................. Ojeda................. Sebastian............. 1LT.................. Chile................ NPME-8-3 Gomez.............................. Dominguez............. Fernando.............. 1LT.................. Chile................ DEV-2-6 Ramirez............................ Donoso................ Jose.................. MSG.................. Chile................ DEV-2-6 Rapiman............................ Cayul................. Oscar................. MSG.................. Chile................ NPME-8-3 Toval.............................. Plazas................ Javier................ 1LT.................. Colombia............. LDR-1-2 Acevedo............................ Mujica................ Sebastian............. MAJ.................. Paraguay............. CMS-6 Acosta............................. Lara.................. Delis................. SSG.................. Venezuela............ NPME-8-2 Acosta............................. Piantini.............. Catalino.............. LTC.................. Dom Rep.............. CMS-1-2 Acosta............................. Nunez................. Angel................. CDT.................. El Salvador.......... LDR-4-2 Acosta............................. Mesa.................. Fabian................ 2LT.................. Colombia............. TAC-6-2 Aduviri............................ Antezana.............. Jose.................. MSG.................. Bolivia.............. OJT Aduviri............................ Antezana.............. Jose.................. MSG.................. Bolivia.............. DEV-2-3 Aduviri............................ Antezana.............. Jose.................. MSG.................. Bolivia.............. NPME-8-2 Aguero............................. Alder................. Pastor................ MAJ.................. Paraguay............. CMS-7 Aguerre............................ Gutierrez............. Jorge................. PV2.................. Colombia............. TAC-8-2 Aguilar............................ Rojas................. Martin................ SSG.................. Panama............... TAC-6-2 Aguilar............................ S..................... Patricio.............. CPT.................. Ecuador.............. TAC-2 Aguilar............................ Valverde.............. Juan.................. CPT.................. Costa Rica........... DEV-2-4 Aguilar............................ Manzano............... Eduardo............... PFC.................. Chile................ DEV-2-6 Aguilera........................... Argueta............... Ronald................ CDT.................. El Salvador.......... LDR-4-2 Aguilera........................... Miranda............... Pablo................. PFC.................. Chile................ DEV-2-6 Aguirre............................ Stoaminga............. Edgar................. SPC.................. Ecuador.............. TAC-6-2 Alarcon............................ Mirand................ Pablo................. SGT.................. Chile................ NPME-8-2 Alarcon............................ Bustos................ Jose.................. PFC.................. Chile................ NPME-8 Alas............................... Luquez................ Hector................ MAJ.................. El Salvador.......... OPME-5 Albarracin......................... ...................... Antonio............... SGT.................. Colombia............. NPME-8-2 Alcantara.......................... Silva................. Pablo................. CPT.................. Mexico............... CMS-6 Aleman............................. Sanchez............... Llery................. 2LT.................. Honduras............. LDR-4 Alfonso............................ Forero................ Javier................ CDT.................. Colombia............. LDR-1-2 Aliaga............................. Llantoy............... Henrry................ SSG.................. Peru................. NPME-8-3 Almeida............................ ...................... Jaime................. LTC.................. Ecuador.............. CMS-5-6 Altamirano......................... ...................... Gabriel............... SGT.................. Ecuador.............. TAC-6-2 Alturo............................. Quintero.............. Alexadner............. SGT.................. Colombia............. NPME-8-2 Alverez............................ Buitrago.............. German................ 1LT.................. Colombia............. CMS-5-8 Alvarez............................ Ochoa................. Javier................ MAJ.................. Colombia............. OPME-5 Alvarez............................ Vejar................. Jorge................. SGT.................. Chile................ NPME-8-2 Alvarez............................ ...................... Pablo................. SGT.................. Uruguay.............. TAC-7 Alvarez............................ Palacio............... Rodrigo............... 2LT.................. Honduras............. LDR-4 Amarista........................... ...................... Victor................ SFC.................. Venezuela............ NPME-8-2 Amaya.............................. Gomez................. Jose.................. CDT.................. El Salvador.......... LDR-4-2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Let me say to the gentleman from Georgia, their record isn't spotless. We presented five cases last year. I mean, maybe you weren't listening to the debate, but we did. And the problem with this year is this is what the WHINSEC gave us, so we can't follow up. And to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, who I have great respect for, you know, I'm not against military training. And yeah, we need to do better. My amendment, by the way, doesn't cut off all funding for the WHINSEC. Most of that money is in the Defense bill. It only cuts off the money that is under the jurisdiction of this bill. And yes, it does need to be improved. I don't know how anybody can vote against this amendment in light of the fact that this is their, WHINSEC's, example of transparency. How do we follow up on the graduates? How can we follow up on whether the people that are going there are human rights abusers when we get this in return? Even under the infamous School of the Americas, we were given the names. That's how I found out that 19 of the 22 trigger men who murdered the Jesuit priests were graduates of the School of Americas. If I got this I never would have known that. This is what they have given us. Now, this is not transparency. This is not accountability. You want that school to do better, we need to send a message on the floor of the House today that we're not satisfied with business as usual, and the way to do that is vote for the McGovern amendment. I urge all my colleagues to vote for the McGovern-Lewis amendment. Let's take a stand for human rights. If this country stands for anything, it needs to stand out loud and four square for human rights, and this is one way to prove it. Vote for this amendment.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, there seems to be a disconnect here. Let me again try to be crystal clear. The problem is that the WHINSEC takes no responsibility for knowing anything about the human rights records of their students before they come to the U.S. or when they return home. They say the vetting process is done by the State Department, and then they say they will not, will not, do follow-up after their students return to their home countries. How can they then claim that their training is effective? Doesn't that require some kind of follow-up or tracking of graduates? Nobody has addressed the fact that, up until just now, we would have access. There was public access to the people who went to the WHINSEC. That's how we knew about those who violated human rights, because we had the list. This is now the response that we get from this school about the people who attend the school, not just the students, but the instructors that they bring in. Where is the transparency? Where is the accountability? What's wrong with laying a little sunshine in? Look, our standing around the world has never been lower. I hate to tell you something, but in Latin America this is one of the most unpopular schools that exists in the United States of America. People think that this is a school responsible for training or at least turning a blind eye to human rights violators, not just from years ago but recently. But, then again, we really can't tell you accurately and neither can you tell me accurately what the human rights records are of these people who are attending. Because it's all blacked out. I mean, this is not the way a school in the United States that trains for our military should operate. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. It ensures that no funds in this bill can be used for programs at the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, otherwise known as WHINSEC. It does not affect the funds in the Defense appropriations bill where the majority of WHINSEC's funding is provided. Last year was the first debate on the WHINSEC, the successor to the U.S. Army School of the Americas. Since last year, the WHINSEC has made a number of very disturbing decisions that bring into question its much-vaunted commitment to transparency and democratic values. For example, last year's debate brought to light a number of human rights cases involving WHINSEC students and instructors. Instead of using these cases as an opportunity to review its practices and procedures, instead of strengthening the vetting process and fixing any problems that might exist, the WHINSEC chose to attack the messengers. It asserted that Salvadoran Colonel Francisco del Cid Diaz, responsible for the notorious 1983 Las Hojas massacre, never attended the WHINSEC. I guess they didn't check their own records because here is his name on the list of 2003 graduates. They attacked the reputation of the current Bolivian Human Rights Ombudsman, Waldo Albarracin, saying that he has no recollection of the military captain who had him kidnapped and tortured in 1997, the same Major Urzagaste who was at the WHINSEC in 2002. When Mr. Albarracin heard of this slander, he sent me a letter describing what happened to him and the role of Urzagaste. Mr. Chairman, like similar cases regarding corruption charges against three Colombian officers who attended the school, the WHINSEC dismissed the horror of Mr. Albarracin's torture as without merit because the courts dropped the case. Are WHINSEC officials ignorant about how military officers acted with impunity in Bolivia during the 1990s? Or in El Salvador during the 1980s? Are they ignorant of how the Colombian military benefits from the worst culture of impunity in the hemisphere today? The fact that charges of kidnapping, torture, murder, drug trafficking and corruption are routinely dropped is a major problem with Latin American militaries, not a virtue. Even more disturbing is how the WHINSEC responded to criticism. It chose to build a fortress around itself, to make sure that no one in the public, no human rights organization, no foreign policy analyst, would be able to review the names of WHINSEC's graduates and instructors. For the first time in the history of WHINSEC, including the 40-year history of its infamous predecessor, the School of the Americas, Freedom of Information Act requests are being denied. I have in my hands the school's response regarding 2005 graduates. Every single name is blacked out. Look at it, 18 pages, completely redacted. Is this anyone's idea of transparency? Of open relations with human rights and other policy organizations? This was a deliberate choice. The practice of secrecy extends to WHINSEC's public relations materials, where not a single solitary name of any of its Latin American students or teachers appears. So blacking out the names of graduates wasn't a mistake. It wasn't an anomaly. It's a deliberate decision to keep information secret, to avoid any kind of independent scrutiny or oversight. Is this the example we want our Latin American counterparts to copy? I hope not, Mr. Chairman. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. The gentleman hasn't been listening to me. The State Department letter that he is quoting is essentially a whitewash. That State Department letter says that Cid Diaz, who I mentioned who is responsible for the Las Hojas massacre, never attended the WHINSEC. I just showed you right here. This is from the WHINSEC. He did. So the State Department was wrong. The State Department letter says that the Human Rights Ombudsman in Bolivia can't remember who his torturer was. I have a letter here from the Bolivian Ombudsman that says he feels he was slandered. So that letter is wrong. And I have proof that it is wrong. And you talk about accountability. Where's the accountability? This is the first time ever that we can't track the graduates. The school doesn't want to track the graduates. They say they don't have the time. So it has been up to human rights organizations. This is what we get in return. How do we know? How does anybody know? We need to do a better job. So you didn't listen to my statement, I would say respectfully to the gentleman from Georgia. What the State Department sent to you is wrong and I have the proof. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. And not only listen to the dissidents, but listen to the courageous Catholic Church in Cuba, which refuses to participate in this program. We have had a policy for 50 years that has failed, it has been a failure. This is a continuation of the same old, same old. But even if you want to go down that road, the reason why you should oppose this amendment is because this program has been plagued with corruption and cronyism. We have used taxpayer moneys to buy Godiva chocolates and cashmere sweaters. I mean, come on. That is not a way to support dissidents. That is not a way to support the struggling democratic movement in Cuba. This program has been mismanaged. It is up to the Members of this Congress to make sure we do the proper oversight to make sure that we're not wasting taxpayers' money.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, which seeks to send five times the current level of funding to so- called democracy assistance programs for Cuba. Five times the amount of money to programs that are not transparent; smack of cronyism; are noncompetitive; and, frankly speaking, foolish, corrupt, and just plain embarrassing for the United States. How bad is this program? So bad that Cuba's courageous Catholic Church refuses to work with it. Many dissidents have told me that they think that this program is a bad idea. For Cuban opposition leaders to take money from the U.S. Government subjects them to the charge that they are somehow U.S. agents. That is not the way to promote democracy. I support the committee bill, which keeps funding level at $9 million. It is the smart thing to do until problems outlined in the November GAO report have been addressed and the program redesigned and better managed so that it might have at least some chance of being effective. Mr. Chairman, everyone in this House supports the work of Cuba's dissident and pro-democracy community. But we do not need to squander five times more money on leather coats, cashmere sweaters, Game Boys, crabmeat, and Godiva chocolates purchased by groups pretending to support them. What do Godiva chocolates have to do with promoting democracy in Cuba? Come on, give me a break. The American people want accountability, and I hope a majority in this Congress will too. Vote ``no'' on this amendment.