Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this open rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 2764, the State-Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008. There is so much to praise in this bill: its emphasis on funding our core bilateral development programs; its emphasis on funding basic education, child survival and global health initiatives. And most importantly, its emphasis on providing for our national security and our global economic interests. I would like to praise Subcommittee Chairwoman Lowey and Ranking Member Wolf and the Foreign Operations Subcommittee in particular for the work they have done on aid to Colombia. This bill makes some badly needed and long overdue changes to our aid program for Colombia. The results of the past several years, particularly where illegal drugs are concerned, made clear that it is time to try a different and more comprehensive approach. The 2008 bill rebalances our priorities in Colombia. It recognizes that the response to violence, narcotrafficking and instability in our South American neighbor must be multifaceted, helping to guarantee lasting security through good governance. Colombia is an important friend of the United States and it is the largest recipient of U.S. assistance outside the troubled Middle East region. Colombia deserves our support; and even though I have been a critic of many of our past policies, I have never and I will never advocate walking away from Colombia or its people. The new approach in this bill will make our counternarcotics policy more effective by helping small farmers transition permanently away from illegal drug production, increasing funds to investigate and prosecute major drug traffickers, and continuing drug interdiction programs. Aerial fumigation and sporadic military offenses are no substitute for helping Colombia to govern its own territory. The results make that clear: 7 years and $5.4 billion later, the old policy has resulted in more coca growing in Colombia, and the price of cocaine on the streets of America is actually lower than before we started. It is time for a change, for a new more balanced direction, and this bill provides more funding for judges and prosecutors, roads, clean water, jobs and aid for vulnerable people. It looks to fund the need of today's Colombia, not yesterday's. Many Colombians are working today to clean house in Colombia, going after politically powerful criminals who send drugs to our shores and wreak violence and mayhem in Colombia. The aid in this bill will help them. Success hinges on Colombia's judicial system which faces serious challenges. This bill provides them with new resources to meet those challenges. Mr. Speaker, unless Colombia deals with the overriding issue of impunity, many of us are going to continue to fight for even more changes in our policy, restricting security assistance to the Colombian military which is responsible for a lot of the human rights violations, and we are going to continue to insist that no free trade agreement move forward until the human rights situation improves in Colombia. If the United States of America stands for anything, it should stand out loud and foursquare for human rights. And for too many years, we have turned our backs on the harsh reality in Colombia where thousands of trade unionists have disappeared or been murdered, thousands of people have been victimized by security forces and their allies in the paramilitary forces. We should not be sending money in a way that does not acknowledge that those security forces need to do better. Mr. Speaker, success also depends on Colombia's ability to govern and create employment, especially in the lawless zones where drug traffickers and paramilitary groups still operate. This bill allows USAID to expand badly needed efforts to those communities in coca-growing areas that up until now have been beyond our reach due to lack of funds. Finally, success depends on Colombia's ability to care for and reintegrate victims of violence. This includes helping Colombia's internally displaced population which is second in the world only to Sudan. That is not a list you want to be on, Mr. Speaker. It means protecting people coming forward to testify who are seeking redress. It also means helping people recover stolen land through violence and helping Afro-Colombian and indigenous people who have been disproportionately hit by violence. Mr. Speaker, this bill does a good job of achieving balance between economic development and security aid for Colombia. It demonstrates a level of support for Colombia's democratic future that we have not been able to articulate before now. I support this new balanced direction for Colombia, and I applaud the work of the Appropriations Committee for not only these provisions but for its judicious approach of supporting what works best in our global development programs.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, as the House prepares today to vote on final passage of S.5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, I am again reminded of the extraordinary contributions one of my constituents has made to the life sciences. Dr. Craig C. Mello of Shrewsbury, Massachusetts won the 2006 Nobel Prize in the field of Physiology or Medicine for his revolutionary discovery of RNA interference and the gene silencing process. Earlier this year, the University of Massachusetts Medical School honored its most famous faculty member with a tribute that I was regretfully unable to attend. However, on May 2 I had the distinct privilege of introducing Dr. Mello at a luncheon for all of the 2006 Nobel Laureates hosted by my colleagues and the Science Coalition here in the Capitol. It seems only fitting on this historic day in the United States House of Representatives that I humbly submit for the Record my introduction of Dr. Mello at that recent program. I do this not only to highlight his achievement but to also to emphasize the fact that this vitally important research is being led by America's most brilliant, thoughtful and committed scientists who are dedicated to improving the lives of all people everywhere. Congressman James P. McGovern--Introduction of Craig C. Mello, PhD. Good afternoon. I want to begin by thanking all of my colleagues who are here today and, in particular, Chairman Bart Gordon and Congressman McNerney for their work in organizing this Nobel Laureate Luncheon as well as the House Resolution honoring our distinguished guests. I also want to thank the Science Coalition for their assistance in coordinating this program and all of the activities our Nobel Laureates are participating in today. You know, if you work in this building long enough you come in contact with some very impressive people; world leaders, movie actors, artists, authors and every kind of celebrity. Well, I've now worked in this building for more than half my life--fourteen years as an aide to the late Congressman Joe Moakley and ten years as a member of Congress myself--and I'm here to tell you that few people have impressed me more than Dr. Craig Mello. That's not just because he is my constituent and works at the finest medical school--public or private--in the world, the University of Massachusetts Medical School in my hometown of Worcester. It is also not just because Craig Mello and I have so much in common. We are both tall with full heads-of-hair as you can tell. Notwithstanding these similarities, I am--in all seriousness--very proud to be here today to introduce and congratulate Dr. Mello for far less obvious but much more important reasons. He and his colleague, Dr. Andrew Fire, have blown open a whole new field of biomedical research with their revolutionary discovery of RNA interference and the gene silencing process. Together, they have brought renewed hope to millions of people who are suffering from countless debilitating diseases and genetic disorders. The potential for new therapies for cancer, heart disease, and diabetes among several other diseases has never been greater as a result of their extraordinary achievement. In fact, their research may one day even have the added benefit of helping one of Dr. Mello's own children who is diabetic. I can't even imagine how gratifying that must be for Dr. Mello and it is surely a source of pride that extends even beyond the prestige of winning a Nobel Prize. It is also a poignant reminder for all us in public service about how deeply personal and incredibly important it is for this research to continue. You know, I'm not aware of any other Nobel Laureates in my congressional district but that's not to say it hasn't been home to other distinguished figures in our nation's history. Horace Mann, widely regarded as the father of the American education system, served first in the Massachusetts Legislature and later as a member of this House, was born in Franklin, Massachusetts--in my congressional district. After serving in Congress, Horace Mann ended his career as President of Antioch College and in his final valedictory address to the graduating class of 1859, he said this: ``Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for Humanity.'' Well, Dr. Mello, there is no doubt that you have scored a triumphant victory for all of Humanity. I am both humbled and inspired by what you have accomplished. And, I am also deeply grateful for all that you've done since winning the Nobel Prize to support funding for public education in Shrewsbury, Massachusetts and elsewhere. Your generosity and commitment to that cause is even further evidence that you are deserving of the accolades you have rightly received. It is now my distinct pleasure to introduce Dr. Craig Mello, the winner of the 2006 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine and to present him with this resolution.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from California (Ms. Matsui) for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this ground-breaking legislation, S. 5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007, and I want to commend the bipartisan leadership of Senator Reid and Senator Harkin and Senator Orrin Hatch for their hard work in crafting and passing this legislation. And I also want to thank the bipartisan leadership of Congresswoman Diana DeGette and Congressman Mike Castle for their tireless work on stem cell research funding. Mr. Speaker, Democrats have fought long and hard in the name of science and innovation. Here in the House of Representatives on January 11 of this year, as part of the 100 hours legislation led by Speaker Pelosi, we saw the unlocked potential held in stem cell research. We saw the potential to cure the diseases that affect 100 million Americans, debilitating diseases such as Parkinson's, diabetes, Alzheimer's, Lou Gehrig's, multiple sclerosis and cancer, and I could go and on and on and on. In my district of Massachusetts, my constituents see the value of progress and want to invest in the life sciences. As part of the life science initiative by the State, a stem cell bank will be created at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center in Worcester. It will be part of the largest repository of stem cell lines in the world. Mr. Speaker, embryonic stem cell research has the support of over 500 organizations, including the American Medical Association, AARP, the Association of American Medical Colleges, American Diabetes Association and Paralyzed Veterans of America, and I could go on. I believe we owe the American people the promise of science and medicine. The legislation before us reflects the best science in the world. The legislation before us holds out the hope for a better life for millions of people all throughout the world. It is time that President Bush stop being an obstructionist on this issue. It is time that he gets out of the way and listens to the will of the American people. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), my colleague, says that this is about politics. It is not about politics. This has nothing to do with politics, and it is sad that so many people who oppose this want to politicize this issue. It isn't about politics. It is about life and death. It is about improving the quality of life through the best science that is available to us. So it is time for this Congress to at long last do the right thing. We have debated this issue over and over and over and over and over. It is time for this Congress to do the right thing, to listen to the will of the American people, to listen to the best science and finally pass this bill. Governor Patrick Announces Massachusetts's New Life Science Initiative Boston.--Tuesday, May 8--Governor Deval Patrick today announced his plan to make Massachusetts the global leader in life sciences, unveiling for the first time ever a comprehensive, collaborative Massachusetts Life Science Strategy. The plan, outlined during a speech at the BIO 2007 convention, includes a 10 year, $1 billion investment package that will both enhance the state's already nationally recognized assets in the fields of medicine and science and fill gaps in federal funding to ensure the state's ability to support life science progress from the idea stage through the production stage. The Patrick Administration's strategy brings together industry, academic research hospitals, and public and private colleges and universities to coordinate these efforts, spur new research, strengthen investments, create new jobs and produce new therapies for a better quality of life. ``There is no place in the world with as much talent in life sciences and biotech as here in Massachusetts,'' said Governor Patrick. ``Now is the time for us to invest in that talent and bring together the resources of our unparalleled research universities, teaching hospitals, and industry to work towards a common goal--to grow ideas into products to create cures and jobs.'' Key to the Governor's Life Science Initiative is new legislation that will strengthen the Massachusetts Life Science Center and charge it with the execution of a life science mission focused on science and economic development, strategic investments at critical stages of the development cycle, and collaboration with the private sector to create innovation infrastructure critical to both researchers and companies. The Governor also announced his commitment to making targeted investments in companies that encourage life science economic development in the Commonwealth. ``I commend the Governor for reaching out to all sectors of our life science cluster in order to craft a stem cell/life science package that recognizes the unique institutional assets and intellectual firepower in our region,'' said Steven Hyman, Professor of Neurobiology at Harvard Medical School and Chairman of the Massachusetts. ``The Governor allocates state resources in effective ways to enhance our traditional strengths, buttress areas that need attention, and encourage powerful collaborations between our leading edge institutions.'' Today's announcement at the BIO 2007 Convention highlighted the following: A $1 billion investment package that includes funds to: Bridge the NIH funding gap--A competitive grant program during the current downturn in federal support to sustain key programs in the state. Our collective success during the 1998-2003 period when the NIH budget doubled from $14 billion to $28 billion only solidified Massachusetts' dominance in the area of biomedical research. However, the subsequent four years of flat funding since 2003 has caused a 13 percent loss of funding power by NIH and a 35 percent reduction in support for clinical trials. The Patrick administration will make surgical investments during the downturn to sustain key programs here in Massachusetts in order that our position is sustained to once again capture large percentages of new funding when it materializes. Create the Massachusetts Stem Cell Bank--A first in the nation centralized repository of new stem cell lines available to all sectors, public and private, of research enterprise. Boston University, Brigham & Women's, Children's Hospital, Harvard University, Massachusetts General Hospital, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Partners HealthCare and the University of Massachusetts have already agreed to participate in the Bank when it is completed. Establish Massachusetts Life Science Fellowship Grants-- Grant packages for research institutions in Massachusetts to attract and retain the rising stars of life sciences research in the Commonwealth, and ensure Massachusetts is competitive with other states and nations. Establish Massachusetts Life Science Innovation Centers-- Centerbased research facilities that streamline technology transfer, development time and funding opportunity. ``As the president of the University of Massachusetts, the leading public academic research institution in the Commonwealth, I applaud Governor Patrick for making such a strong commitment to the life sciences, particularly stem cell research and RNAi-related research and development,'' said University of Massachusetts President Jack M. Wilson. ``The announcement today is an important step in developing a world-class life sciences strategy for the Commonwealth that will foster scientific innovation, including unlocking the mysteries of debilitating diseases, and spur economic growth. The University of Massachusetts is proud to be able to play an important role in this strategy and I truly believe this proposal is far-reaching, comprehensive and of sufficient scope and scale to enable Massachusetts to continue and expand its national and global leadership in biotechnology and the life sciences.'' ``It is clear to me that scientific innovation and cutting- edge research help set Massachusetts apart in the eyes of the life sciences and greater scientific community. Today's announcement of this significant, new state funding is an important signal that the opportunities to do cutting-edge research in this state are expanding. I am proud that RNAi is already changing the scientific landscape, offering new tools in the effort to better human health; my colleagues at the UMass Medical School and I see great promise in our continued work with RNAi and RNAi Therapeutics. Support of this type from the government, academic institutions and society allows us to further advance science and to conduct important basic, clinical and translational research,'' Nobel Laureate Craig Mello, Ph.D. of the University of Massachusetts Medical School said. ``The future of life sciences is here in Massachusetts.'' Governor Patrick said. ``We have the talent. We have the entrepreneurial spirit. Now let's seize the future.''

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, again, I regret that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are not pleased with the rule that makes all of the amendments that were offered in order, but I think that that is the way we should do business around here. It is in sharp contrast to the way they used to do business when the Republicans were in the majority, where there was a tendency to shut everything down, to close everything up, to not allow Members of the minority to be able to have amendments. But we're different, and I'm glad we are different. On the underlying legislation, there should be unanimity in this House about the importance of passing this legislation. It is important that we keep our commitment to the people of Afghanistan. It is important that we keep our commitment to the people of the United States, who after September 11 we said, in the Congress and in the White House, that we are going to do everything we can do bring to justice, to hold to account those who are responsible for September 11. Unfortunately, today, we are not anywhere near where we should be in Afghanistan; and the reason for that is because we have diverted our resources, we have diverted our soldiers and our political capital to a never-ending war in Iraq. We have put our soldiers in the middle of a civil war in Iraq. We have spent over half a trillion dollars in Iraq; and, as a result, those resources have not been sent to Afghanistan; and I think that is regrettable. But we need to pass this bill today. I hope it passes with a unanimous vote. I urge my colleagues to support the rule. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule. Mr. 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. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just say that, again, the underlying legislation is incredibly important. We do have an obligation, a moral obligation, to the people of Afghanistan. And, quite frankly, from a national security perspective, that is where our attention should be and where our attention should have been. It is regrettable, it is regrettable that the President of the United States and his administration and many in this Chamber have chosen to take their eye off what our responsibility is in Afghanistan over these last several years, and instead, we find ourselves bogged down in a quagmire in Iraq. Those who are responsible for September 11, those who are responsible for the murder of so many of our citizens, they were in Afghanistan. That is where al Qaeda was. And instead of holding al Qaeda accountable in Afghanistan, instead of making sure that our resources go to promoting democracy and stability in Afghanistan, instead of focusing on this ever-growing drug problem in Afghanistan, we have spent over half a trillion dollars in Iraq. And that is regrettable. And, quite frankly, when history looks back on how these last few years were conducted, they are going to take note of the fact that we missed important opportunities to better protect our country by taking our eye off of what our responsibility was in Afghanistan. And let me just say about the rule, I will apologize to my colleague from Florida for a rule that we bring to the floor today that makes every single amendment that was offered in the Rules Committee and not withdrawn by its author in order. Every Republican amendment, every Democratic amendment. And I know that that is different from the way things used to be when the Republicans were in charge of the Rules Committee. They had a tendency to just shut us all out routinely. But things are different now, and under the Democratic administration here in the Congress, we are trying to make sure that all points of view have an opportunity to be heard on the floor. So I am happy that we have this rule, and, again, I apologize to the gentleman that it is not like what they used to do. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Vermont, a member of the Rules Committee (Mr. Welch).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 453 provides for consideration of H.R. 2446, the Afghanistan Freedom and Security Support Act of 2007 under a structured rule that makes in order all of the amendments that were submitted to the Rules Committee, except for those withdrawn by their sponsors. I want to acknowledge and express my respect for the work of Chairman Lantos and Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen for bringing such a fine example of bipartisan cooperation and collaboration before the House for consideration. Following the ouster of the Taliban regime in late 2001, the United States, the United Nations and the international community embarked on what they hoped would be a comprehensive assistance program to help the new Afghan president, of President Hamid Karzai, establish a new democracy, rebuild the Afghan economy and provide for the general well- being of the Afghan people. Regrettably, after a most promising start, progress has slowed in most parts of the country. Remnants of the Taliban continue to resist the new government and are reorganizing and strengthening their networks from neighboring countries. Instability has increased, including the introduction of suicide bombings against U.S. soldiers, NATO troops, Afghan officials, and civilians and international and Afghan humanitarian aid workers. Narcotics production threatens to overwhelm the country. According to UN studies, a large percentage of Afghans, including farmers, laborers, traffickers, war lords, insurgents, and officials participate in and benefit from illegal poppy trade. Congress first addressed the issue aiding Afghanistan by passing the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act of 2002, which established a reconstruction program, mandated a relief coordinator, provided support to the NATO-led international security forces, and gave new security assistance authority to our President. In addition to food aid, refugee relief and other forms of emergency disaster assistance, the United States implemented a wide-ranging assistance program for Afghanistan, including aid for schools, hospitals and farms, and support to reestablish the participation of women and girls in society, education and the workplace. The legislation the House will take up today, H.R. 2446, reauthorizes programs created by the original Afghanistan Freedom Support Act, creates a new focus on counternarcotics efforts, and provides for stronger and more enhanced oversight of U.S. strategic goals and performance in Afghanistan. Overall, H.R. 2446 provides modest increases in authorized levels for humanitarian, development, democracy building and security assistance. I cannot stress enough how important it is that Afghanistan succeed in establishing and consolidating a representative government and rebuilding the country's economy and civil society. When we overthrew the Taliban regime, we made promises to the Afghan people with the full backing of the international community. We cannot renege on those promises. We cannot fail the people of Afghanistan who came together in support of a common vision for the future. I am very, very concerned that many of the difficulties confronting Afghanistan today, especially in the areas of security, are due in large part to taking our eye off the ball in Afghanistan and exhausting our economic and military resources in Iraq. We had the chance to make Afghanistan secure. We failed to do so because we chose not to invest the necessary resources in Afghanistan, but, rather, to transfer our attention and our resources to Iraq. We are now playing catch up in Afghanistan as the situation there is deteriorating. I applaud the chairman and members of the Foreign Affairs Committee for this timely reauthorization. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 453.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of this rule is for debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume. General Leave

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 453 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, a little over a year ago, Chairman Lantos and I protested in front of the Sudanese Embassy about the continuing genocide in Darfur. I'm privileged to say that I've shared jail time with the distinguished gentleman from California. I also want to thank Congresswoman Lee for her leadership on this issue, and I'm honored to be an original cosponsor of this bill. Mr. Speaker, others have already described the terrible humanitarian crisis affecting the civilian population of Darfur. Crimes against humanity are committed on a daily basis. President Bush and the Congress have determined the systematic killings and deprivations in Darfur constitute acts of genocide. These serious matters demand a sustained, multilateral response by the United States and the international community. Together, we must pressure the Government of Sudan to stop the killing, stop the arming and support of proxy militias, and negotiate and implement a just and lasting peace. Key to the success of such a strategy is the active support of Sudan's major economic and political partners: China, Russia, Malaysia, Egypt and India. China is Sudan's largest economic partner and its largest provider of military arms and equipment. China can play a significant, perhaps even decisive, role in ending the genocide in Darfur and convincing Khartoum to negotiate a lasting peace accord. But will it? China has taken some steps in the right direction. It supported the deployment of a joint United Nations-African Union peacekeeping force, and recently appointed a special envoy to Darfur. But rather than condemn the violence against defenseless civilians, China's envoy cited poverty as the reason for Darfur's suffering. Did poverty displace over two-and-a-half million people into camps, Mr. Speaker? Did poverty force another half a million to flee the country and live in refugee camps? I visited some of these camps in eastern Chad, Mr. Speaker. I saw first-hand how the conflict in Darfur is destabilizing Sudan's neighbors. Did poverty burn Darfur's villages to the ground, poison water wells, rape women, murder men, and leave children to die of hunger and thirst? No, Mr. Speaker. The regime sitting in Khartoum has orchestrated and condoned these actions. This resolution asks China to acknowledge this violence and use its influence to stop the death and destruction taking place in Darfur. To stop selling military arms and equipment to Sudan. To exercise its considerable economic leverage by suspending its economic ties until Khartoum stops the killing, complies fully with U.N. Security Council resolutions, and enters good faith negotiations to end the fighting in Darfur. Next year, China will host the 2008 Summer Olympics. It has chosen as its theme for the Games a motto filled with hope: ``One World, One Dream.'' But life in Darfur is no dream, Mr. Speaker. It's an unspeakable nightmare. China has the ability to change that reality. It is, as always, Mr. Speaker, a matter of political will. Is China's so-called dream for the world nothing more than a paper banner carried around by a cute and cuddly mascot? Or does China genuinely want to play a responsible role in world and human events and help stop the genocide in Darfur? We are watching, Mr. Speaker. The world is watching, Mr. Speaker. I urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 422.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, some might see this Iraq supplemental as a victory for President Bush in his never-ending quest to secure open- ended, unaccountable funding for his disastrous policy in Iraq. If so, it is a hollow victory. We can debate why and when our Iraq policy turned into the disaster that plays out every day in Baghdad and Dyala. But that debate really doesn't matter anymore, because the President's policy is a failure. And no amount of funding, with or without conditions, can fix it. The only thing that matters now is when and how we end this disaster, and when we bring our uniformed men and women safely home to their families and communities. Our troops did their job. They achieved their mission. They ended the brutal reign of Saddam Hussein, and confirmed for the world that there never were any weapons of mass destruction. They weren't sent to Iraq to take a bullet on behalf of the sectarian religious factions hellbent on civil war. Mr. Speaker, this supplemental only postpones the inevitable. After hundreds of billions of dollars; after more than 3,400 soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen have lost their lives; after nearly 1,000 U.S. defense contractors have been killed; after more than 25,000 uniformed men and women have been wounded or maimed; after tens of thousands of American veterans returning from Iraq will be suffering from the trauma they experienced in combat for the rest of their lives; after hundreds of thousands of Iraqi men, women and children have been killed and millions more have been traumatized by the violence and horror that now marks Iraqi daily life; after the destruction of towns, villages, communities, neighborhoods and infrastructure, we still come back to the same place, the same stark question. Mr. Speaker, how and when is this war and our military occupation of Iraq going to end? The Middle East is going up in flames. Al Qaeda and other terrorist networks remain strong and intact. Their recruitment is growing. Meanwhile, America's standing in the world has never been lower. I ask each of my colleagues, when and how are we going to get out of Iraq? When will each of us be able to tell the families in our districts that their sons and daughters, fathers and mothers, husbands and wives, brothers and sisters, will finally be coming home? Mr. Speaker, unbelievably, the President doesn't even want his own policy priorities tied to a time line for removing our troops in Iraq. He wants no accountability on the readiness of our troops, or whether they are adequately trained and equipped. Just show me the money. That's all he wants. Mr. Speaker, I simply can't support it. And I will vote against this blank check of a supplemental. Mr. Speaker, let me just conclude with a few words about the rule. This is not a satisfactory conclusion to the weeks-long debate over funding the war. But the sad reality is that the Senate is too timid and the President too irrational. There was no one with whom the House could forge a genuine compromise to hold the President accountable for the lives he is willing to sacrifice and the money he seeks and move us closer to bringing our troops home. And we do not have the votes in this House, sadly, to override a veto. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Obey for their persistence and their courage in trying to end this tragic war. The rule before us ensures that we do not walk away from this debate or the decision to remove our troops from Iraq. Under this rule, the House must vote on removing our troops from Iraq before any further supplemental funding can be approved for the war. So let's be clear. Those of us who oppose this war will be back again and again and again and again until this war is ended. Mr. Speaker, from the White House to our military field commanders, everyone, including the Republican leader of this House, has said that September is the tipping point. Well, we will vote, and we will vote in September. And we will decide, and I pray that we will then bring our troops home.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Guild of Saint Agnes, an extraordinary childcare organization headquartered in my hometown of Worcester, Massachusetts. Later this evening the very talented and dedicated staff members of the Guild will be recognized for their contributions to the success of this agency at an employee appreciation dinner. Due to scheduled roll callvotes, I am unable to attend that event but wanted to take this opportunity to publicly thank the staff of the Guild for the exceptional care they provide to more than 1,100 children and families all across central Massachusetts. As the father of a young son and daughter, I know full well the love, patience and understanding it takes to care for children. While the demands are often great, the rewards are more often times immeasurable. Each and every employee of the Guild should be commended for the profoundly positive influence they have had and are having on the scores of young boys and girls in their care. Nothing we debate in this body is as important as the future we give our young people and the good work of the people at the Guild of Saint Agnes must not go unnoticed by Congress. Madam Speaker, I believe it is also equally important on this occasion that we in the U.S. House of Representatives take notice of the visionary leadership the Guild of Saint Agnes has enjoyed these past 14 years. Notwithstanding the Guild's proud history, the organization has prospered and thrived like no other in the region under the skilled and expert stewardship of Ed Madaus. As Executive Director of the Guild, Ed has transformed the agency into the most widely-known and highly- regarded childcare provider in greater Worcester County. In addition to growing the annual operating budget of the Guild from $1 million to $9 million, Ed has led the organization through the rigorous process of having all of its childcare centers fully accredited by the National Association for the Education of Young Children. He has also built successful partnerships with the Worcester Public Schools and other area school districts to provide after-school care for countless working families. Ed has long understood the intrinsic connection between early childhood education and child development, and was the primary proponent for seeking the highly-competitive 21st Century grant to better connect parents and children to their schools. Perhaps most impressive among Ed's numerous achievements at the Guild has been his steadfast refusal to ignore the pressing needs of the most vulnerable children in our midst. He has aggressively pursued childcare placements for children who might otherwise find themselves in foster care and thereby given stability and hope to an untold number of families struggling to remain intact. Not satisfied to do right by just the Guild's clients, Ed has also instituted a number of employee benefit programs as Executive Director. At his insistence, the Guild established a 100 percent tuition assistance program to encourage staff members to further their education and training in early childhood development and teaching. Today, one-third of the Guild's employees are enrolled in college. The success of that program reflects Ed's own life-long commitment to learning. A graduate of Holy Cross College, Ed holds both a master's degree in Education from Worcester State College and a second master's degree in Social Work from Boston College. Madam Speaker, in my 10 years in Congress I have seldom encountered a more consummate professional and decent human being than Ed Madaus. In the tradition of Marian Wright Edelman, the founder of the Children's Defense Fund, Ed Madaus has time and again proven himself to be a fierce, unrelenting and committed advocate for children. Whether at the state's Department of Social Services or as Executive Director for the Guild of Saint Agnes, Ed has surpassed that test made famous by Wright Edelman when she said, ``If we don't stand up for children, then we don't stand for much. Madam Speaker, in closing, I humbly ask that today we in the U.S. House of Representatives stand up to publicly thank Edward Madaus for his lifetime of devoted service to our nation's children and, in particular, for his leadership at the Guild of Saint Agnes. He deserves our admiration, respect and gratitude for a career spent in the most noble cause of all.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, today is my final day on the Food Stamp Challenge, an initiative where public officials eat for 1 week on a food stamp budget, $21 for the week. That is $3 a day, or $1 per meal. This amount reflects the national average of the food stamp benefit. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the Food Stamp Challenge is to raise awareness of the crucial role the food stamp program serves in the lives of 26 million Americans each month, including over 450,000 in my State of Massachusetts. Three of my esteemed colleagues, Representatives Jo Ann Emerson, Jan Schakowsky and Tim Ryan, joined me in taking the challenge over the past week. And although we may be less energetic and perhaps crankier than when we started the challenge nearly a week ago, each of us has learned a great deal. Certainly my wife, Lisa, and I have gained valuable insights from our experience on a very tight budget. We have much more sympathy over how the lack of energy and the hard choices of how to stretch the budget and put food on the table might also stretch one's patience and stress a marriage. We can imagine the worry and pain of parents if we had to feed our children on this kind of budget. These are just a few of our reflections over the past week. Yet truly our most valuable lesson came from the scores of individuals who reached out to us to share their personal experiences struggling to put food on the table for their families. Whether they posted comments on our blog or called my office and spoke with my staff, these individuals taught Lisa and me about how hardworking Americans manage to provide for themselves and their families in spite of inadequate food stamp benefit levels. They talked about having to make tough trade-offs between paying utility bills, buying clothes for their children, addressing medical needs and purchasing food. They also described the trade-off between eating to be healthy or eating to be full. These kinds of trade-offs are unfair and unacceptable. Mr. Speaker, America can and should do more for low-income individuals and families working hard to survive each and every day. One way we can do that is through the Feeding America's Families Act, a bill that I introduced earlier this month with my colleague, Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson. The Feeding America's Families Act would strengthen the food stamp program to better meet the needs of low-income Americans. It raises the minimum benefit from $10 a month--an amount that has not increased since the 1970s--to about $30 a month. It also indexes current benefit levels to the rate of inflation, ensuring that the purchasing power of food stamps remains constant. Furthermore, because access to the food stamp program should be the right of every lawfully residing person in this country, the bill restores eligibility to all legal immigrants, a provision that was removed in 1996. On Sunday, May 13, Mother's Day, the New York Times editorial stated that ``bolstering food stamps must be Congress's top priority in this year's farm bill.'' Well, I could not agree more. My week on the Food Stamp Challenge has not only strengthened my conviction, I encourage all of my colleagues to cosponsor H.R. 2129, Feeding America's Families Act, and other legislative efforts to bolster and improve our Federal hunger and nutrition programs. The cliche tells us that where there's a will there's a way. But in this case, there is a very clear way. The question is, do we have the political will? I believe we do.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, today is the third day of my week on the Food Stamp Challenge, where public officials live for 1 week on a food stamp budget in order to raise awareness about the Food Stamp Program. Representatives Jo Ann Emerson, Tim Ryan, and Jan Schakowsky are also taking part. Although critics of the Food Stamp Program frequently speculate that it runs rampant with fraud, waste, and abuse, this is simply and utterly untrue. Don't just take my word for it. Go ask the Government Accountability Office. According to the GAO, the Food Stamp program currently operates at historically low error rates. Between 1999 and 2005, the national payment error rate declined 40 percent to an all-time low of 5.84 percent. In addition, there are incentives built into the program so that States are rewarded for low error rates and may be fined if they are underperforming. By any measure the Food Stamp Program is an example of an efficiently run government program. I will insert into the Record the highlights of the GAO testimony before the Senate on payment errors and trafficking. [From Highlights, Jan. 31, 2007] Food Stamp Program Why GAO Did This Study The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Food Stamp Program is intended to help low-income individuals and families obtain a better diet by supplementing their income with benefits to purchase food. USDA's Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) and the states jointly implement the Food Stamp Program, which is to be authorized when it expires in fiscal year 2007. This testimony discusses our past work on two issues related to ensuring integrity of the program: (1) improper payments to food stamp participants, and (2) trafficking in food stamp benefits. This testimony is based on a May 2005 report on payment errors (GAO-05-245) and an October 2006 report on trafficking (GAO-07-53). For the payment error report, GAO analyzed program quality control data and interviewed program stakeholders, including state and local officials. For the trafficking report, GAO interviewed agency officials, visited field offices, conducted case file reviews, and analyzed data from the FNS retailer database. What GAO Found The national payment error rate for the Food Stamp Program combines states' overpayments and underpayments to program participants and has declined by about 40 percent between 1999 and 2005, from 9.86 percent to a record low of 5.84 percent, due in part to options made available to states that simplified program reporting rules. In 2005, the program made payment errors totaling about $1.7 billion. However, if the 1999 error rate was in effect in 2005, program payment errors would have been $1.1 billion higher. FNS and the states we reviewed have taken several steps to improve food stamp payment accuracy, most of which are consistent with internal control practices known to reduce improper payments. These include practices to improve accountability, perform risk assessments, implement changes based on such assessments, and monitor program performance. FNS estimates indicate that the national rate of food stamp trafficking declined from about 3.8 cents per dollar of benefits redeemed in 1993 to about 1.0 cent per dollar during the years 2002 to 2005 and that trafficking occurs more frequently in smaller stores. FNS has taken advantage of electronic benefit transfer and other new technology to improve its ability to detect trafficking and disqualify retailers who traffic. Law enforcement agencies have investigated and referred for prosecution a decreasing number of traffickers; they are instead focusing their efforts on fewer high-impact investigations. Despite the progress FNS has made in combating retailer trafficking, the Food Stamp Program remains vulnerable because retailers can enter the program intending to traffic and do so, often without fear of severe criminal penalties, as the declining number of investigations referred for prosecution suggests. While both payment errors and trafficking of benefits have declined in a time of rising participation, ensuring program integrity remains a fundamental challenge facing the Food Stamp Program. To reduce program vulnerabilities and ensure limited compliance-monitoring resources are used efficiently, GAO recommended in its October 2006 trafficking report that FNS take additional steps to target and provide early oversight of stores most likely to traffic; develop a strategy to increase penalties for trafficking, working with the Inspector General as needed; and promote state efforts to pursue recipients suspected of trafficking. FNS generally agreed with GAO's findings, conclusions, and recommendations. However, FNS believes it does have a strategy for targeting resources through their use of food stamp transaction data to identify suspicious transaction patterns. GAO believes that FNS has made good progress in its use of these transaction data; however, it is now at a point where it can begin to formulate more sophisticated analyses.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Roger and Diana Senechal of Auburn, MA for their many years of dedicated community service and volunteerism. Roger Senechal and Diana (Sullivan) Senechal dedicated their lives to religion at an early age. They met while volunteering their services for families in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and were married in 1978. The Senechals moved to New Hampshire, where they continued their lives of service. Diana volunteered extensively and Roger served as the Executive Director for the American Cancer Society. After their son Gerald was born, Roger was received into the Episcopal Church and the family moved to Auburn, Massachusetts, where Roger became a priest at St. Thomas Episcopal Church. Roger and Diana have contributed their time to countless organizations. Their record of volunteerism is astounding. Roger has served the town of Auburn as President of the Auburn Clergy Association, Treasurer of the Worcester City Computer Society, Bee School Director of the Worcester City Beekeepers Association, and Ride Director for the Seven Hills Wheelman. Roger was also involved with Auburn Youth and Family Services, serving on the Advisory Board, Board of Directors, as President-elect, and as President. While working with Auburn Youth and Family Services, Roger helped extend the services provided by the agency. He has also continued to work with the Episcopal Church, serving on the Episcopalian Church Diocesan Evangelism Committee, as Dean of the Deanery, on the Bishops Standing Committee, Revisioning Committee, and the Diocesan Reconciliation Committee. Diana has also been active in Auburn. She worked with Auburn Youth and Family Services as a tutor, mentor, and with the Peaceful Pals and the Family to Family Mentoring programs. She has also worked as a secretary for three churches and as the co-director for a vacation Bible School. The Senechals have embarked together on many volunteer efforts. They have worked for the St. Thomas Episcopal Church through Auburn Youth and Family Services, which provides dinners for conflict resolution groups and the Auburn Comes Together program, along with providing funding for summer camps. They were involved with the Boy Scouts of America, Diana serving as a Den leader and Roger as a Merit Badge Counselor. They have also been involved in Habitat for Humanity and the Auburn Youth Peace Vigils. Roger and Diana have worked tirelessly for the betterment of their community and have served their faith admirably. Their achievements must not go unrecognized, although they humbly assert, ``God gets the credit.'' The Senechals have touched countless people and dedicated their lives in the service of others. Their altruism deserves to be honored. Madam Speaker, I am sure the entire U.S. House of Representatives joins me in thanking Roger and Diana Senechal for their wonderful contributions to the community.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, yesterday I spoke on the floor of this House about the Food Stamp Challenge, an initiative where public officials live for 1 week on a food stamp budget in order to raise awareness of the Food Stamp program. Three of my esteemed colleagues, Representatives Jo Ann Emerson from Missouri, Tim Ryan from Ohio, and Jan Schakowsky from Illinois, are also taking part in the Food Stamp Challenge. We started yesterday. It is not easy eating on $3 a day. But it is nothing compared to the hardship faced by millions of Americans every single day. I urge my colleagues to read more about our experiences on the Food Stamp Challenge blog at foodstampchallenge.typepad.com. This week my colleagues will be joining me in talking about the Food Stamp program and how we can better meet the needs of low-income Americans.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this week, I am joined by three of my esteemed colleagues, Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson from Missouri, Congressman Tim Ryan from Ohio and Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky from Illinois, in taking the Food Stamp Challenge. The Food Stamp Challenge is an initiative begun by nonprofit and religious community groups. Public officials agree to live on a food stamp budget for 1 week in order to raise awareness of the food stamp program and the inadequacy of the current benefit. Under the Food Stamp Challenge, we will only be allowed to eat food totaling $21 for the week, $3 a day, or $1 per meal, which is the national average food stamp benefit. In other words, no lattes at Starbucks, no organic chicken at home and no wine or shrimp at receptions this week. Yesterday, Congresswoman Emerson and I went grocery shopping at the Capitol Hill Safeway for the week. However, she was a more efficient shopper than I was. While she made it through the checkout line in 30 minutes, it took me almost an hour and a half to find food that fit my budget, and that was even with the much-appreciated assistance of Ms. Toinette Wilson, a DC food stamp recipient, who assisted my wife Lisa and me with our shopping. Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski successfully took the challenge with his wife a few weeks ago, and Utah Governor John Huntsman, Jr., is currently living on a food stamp budget with his household of eight. In New York City, where over 1 million people depend on food stamps each month, New York City Councilman Eric Gioia is participating in the Food Stamp Challenge. This diverse group of public leaders who all feel compelled to take on this challenge demonstrates the importance of the food stamp program for all Americans: from California to Massachusetts, Michigan to Texas, Republican and Democrat, urban and rural, the food stamp program represents the moral values of America: compassion, thoughtfulness and community spirit. Mr. Speaker, I am taking this Food Stamp Challenge as a way of saying that as Americans, we need to do more to eliminate hunger and poverty in this country. One in nine U.S. households, nearly 36 million Americans, does not consistently have enough food to feed themselves or their families according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. There is no excuse for this. In the wealthiest country on earth, it is not about finding the resources. It is about mustering the political will. Established in 1939, the food stamp program helps families in need buy food so that they do not have to make difficult choices, such as choosing between paying a utility bill, addressing health care needs or buying food. It truly is the safety net for America's hungry. Despite what some critics like to say, the food stamp program is not a government handout, but it is a true safety net program that provides access to food for people who cannot afford to choose between rent, medicine, child care and transportation. Gone are the days of the inefficient program ravaged by fraud, waste and abuse. In fact, National Journal recently named the food stamp program as one of the government's top successes. And the GAO has repeatedly reported on the successes of this important program. Mr. Speaker, let me take a moment to share with you who benefits from the food stamp program. According to USDA, over 26 million people benefited from the food stamp program last year, including 452,000 individuals from my State of Massachusetts. Over 80 percent of food stamp benefits go to families with children. One in five food stamp households has an elderly family member, and one in four has a disabled member. Increasingly, working families must rely on food stamps to supplement their wages in low-paying jobs. Some may question the motives of elected officials taking this 1-week challenge. These critics, Mr. Speaker, are missing the point. It's time for a much greater public debate to take place around this issue. It is time to end hunger in America, and we can do so starting by focusing on the food stamp program. The food stamp program is our government's first line of defense against hunger and malnutrition and it should be better equipped to accomplish that task. Merely 60 percent of those who are eligible to receive food stamps currently do, and in Massachusetts that participation rate is only 49 percent. The participation rate is particularly low for immigrants and the elderly. Last week, Congresswoman Emerson and I introduced H.R. 2129, the Feeding America's Families Act, which would greatly improve the food stamp program as well as other Federal hunger and nutrition programs scheduled for reauthorization in the farm bill. We encourage each of our colleagues to consider cosponsoring this important piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, although some judge the health of our Nation by how the wealthiest are faring, others, including myself, believe we must measure the morality and prosperity of our society by the status and mobility of those at the bottom of the economic ladder. Through this challenge, I hope my constituents, the American people and my colleagues in Washington, DC, will learn more about the vital role the food stamp program plays in the lives of low-income people.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I would simply say that obviously this is yet another cynical attempt to try to avoid dealing with the issue that I think both Democrats and Republicans want to deal with, and that is whether or not we should have a timetable for withdrawal and redeployment from Iraq. This is a procedural motion that, as the gentleman from Wisconsin pointed out, is so broad, this could justify keeping us in Iraq forever and ever and ever. And for the ``regional security of the Middle East,'' what does that mean? This is an open-ended invitation for our military involvement and for our permanent occupation of Iraq forever. This in and of itself is not particularly well thought out. I understand what you are trying to do, and that is to avoid giving people the opportunity to vote on this. But essentially what you are doing is gutting this legislation. I would strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this motion. We are on our fifth year, our fifth year of this war, no accountability and no admission that perhaps we need to take a different course; and the best you can do is come before us with this motion that would, again, if passed, would allow us to stay and occupy Iraq indefinitely. I think this is a bad idea. I think it is a cynical idea. I think the people on the other side should have the guts to vote ``no'' on the timetable if you don't want to withdraw our troops. If you want a never-ending war, then have the guts to vote for it, but this is not the way to do it. I urge rejection of this motion.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding me the time, and I thank all of those who participated in this debate today. Mr. Speaker, my friends on the other side of the aisle apparently believe in and want to continue the status quo. That is their right. But I believe they are wrong. They have been wrong for 4 long, deadly years. So it is time for new leadership, for a new direction, for a new policy, a policy based on reality, not spin, not press release, not intimidation. My friends say that we can't leave Iraq until the Iraqis ask us to leave. I saw a story that appeared on the Associated Press wire today which states that a majority of Iraqi lawmakers endorsed a draft bill calling for a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign troops and demanding a freeze on the number already in the country. Well, Mr. Speaker, we just heard from the gentleman from California that the Iraqi Government represents the Iraqi people, and apparently the Iraqi Government is telling us they want us to have a time certain when we leave. Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. Our friends on the other side of the aisle argue that the best way to support the troops is to ask them to participate in a failed policy. Well, I disagree. The question before us is simple: Do you want to end this war? If you do, then you will vote for the bill before us. Mr. Speaker, let me end this debate the way I began it, by reminding everyone in this Chamber, Republican and Democrat, reminding everybody, whether you supported the war initially or whether you opposed the war, that we all have a responsibility. We have a responsibility to those men and women who we have put in harm's way, and that responsibility is to act responsibly, to make sure that we are giving every consideration before we put them in harm's way. We are now entering the fifth year of this war. We have a President who refuses to admit one error, one misjudgment. The fact of the matter is, there are two ways to end this war: one, with the cooperation and the help of the President, which we all want. The other way is for Congress to do its job, to take its responsibility seriously and to do what is necessary to bring this war to an end. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for the underlying bill.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this war is a terrible tragedy, and it is time to bring it to an end. This is a straightforward bill to redeploy our military forces from Iraq and to end the war in Iraq, and I want to thank the leadership for bringing it to the floor today. This bill would allow the administration and joint chiefs 3 months to plan a safe and orderly redeployment process, and then an additional 6 months to carry it out. It provides for the orderly transfer to Iraqi authorities the military bases and facilities we have constructed and occupied on their national territory, as General Petraeus himself has always insisted would happen when we depart from Iraq. The bill permits U.S. Armed Forces to remain deployed in Iraq in order to protect U.S. embassy and diplomatic personnel. It also allows limited special operations to pursue members of al Qaeda and other global terrorist organizations, and it continues the training and equipping of Iraqi security forces. Mr. Speaker, this bill does not walk away from Iraq or the Iraqi people. It specifically continues diplomatic, social, economic, and reconstruction aid; and it allows the President to provide asylum or other means of protection to those Iraqi citizens who might be physically endangered by our leaving Iraq because of services they provided to our military personnel. Finally, this bill leaves all the decisions on the locations outside of Iraq to which our troops will be redeployed wholly in the hands of our military commanders. They may be deployed to neighboring countries or transferred to Afghanistan. Many, I hope, would be sent home by commanders, grateful that their service is now completed. And many of our proud Guard and Reserve units would, I hope, return to their stateside duties to protect our homeland. Mr. Speaker, there is no nice, neat, easy way to leave Iraq. Every Member in this Chamber understands that. But it is the right thing to do. The American people have chosen us to act on this matter, and we must act. Redeployment of our troops will set a new dynamic into motion in Iraq and the region. It will force the Iraqis, their neighbors, and the international community to finally confront the tough issues of reconciliation. Until we leave, no one has to make the hard choices about how Iraqis are going to live together or die together. Like all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I stand in awe of our uniformed men and women, who have performed fearlessly and tirelessly in Iraq. But we should no longer demand that their sweat, blood, and lives be sacrificed on the altar of Iraqi sectarian violence. They are needed elsewhere, in Afghanistan, in the region, and here back home. Their duties, their global mission and purpose continue, but Iraq must find its own way. Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. For four long deadly years, this administration and their allies in Congress have been flat wrong about Iraq. The time has come for us to begin redeploying our troops from Iraq in a safe and orderly manner. Now, every one of us, whether we voted for or against the war, has a responsibility for the men and women who have been put in harm's way. It is easy to say stay the course; but I would remind my colleagues, none of us will wake up tomorrow in the midst of a civil war in Iraq. None of us will have to go on patrol in Fallujah or Baghdad. We owe our troops better than rhetoric; we owe them honesty and action. For me, this is a vote of conscience. For me, this is a way to restore the good and decent name of the United States. For me, this is a way to best serve our men and women in uniform, by bringing them home to their families. I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill and vote to end the war.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee is expected to meet Tuesday, May 15, 2007, to grant a rule which may structure the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 1585, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. Members who wish to offer an amendment to this bill should submit 30 copies of the amendment and a brief description of the amendment to the Rules Committee in H-312 in the Capitol no later than 5 p.m. on Monday, May 14. Members are strongly advised to adhere to the amendment deadline to ensure the amendments receive consideration. Amendments should be drafted to the bill as ordered reported by the Committee on Armed Services. A copy of that bill will be posted on the Web site of the Rules Committee tomorrow, May 11. Amendments should be drafted by Legislative Counsel and also should be reviewed by the Office of the Parliamentarian to be sure that the amendments comply with the rules of the House. Members are strongly encouraged to submit their amendments to the Congressional Budget Office for analysis regarding possible PAYGO violations.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 370 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume and I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 370.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 370 provides for consideration in the House of S. Con. Res. 21, the Senate version of the concurrent budget resolution for 2008. It also provides for the House to insist on the House-passed version of the budget resolution and to request a conference with the Senate. The rule is very simple. It allows the House to disagree with the Senate budget resolution and request a conference. It doesn't interfere with the motion to instruct conferees; it just allows the House to go to conference and appoint conferees. This rule is necessary, Mr. Speaker, because the Republican leadership refused to agree to the customary unanimous consent request required to go to conference on a Senate numbered bill. In fact, there is no instance in recent memory where a separate rule has been adopted to go to conference with the Senate on a budget resolution due to the objection of a unanimous consent request. Mr. Speaker, I am having a hard time figuring out why my Republican friends are choosing to be obstructionists on even the most routine housekeeping measures. They talk a lot about civility and comity in the House, but apparently it is just that, talk, because their actions point to a very different strategy. The new Democratic majority, on the other hand, is committed to results. We were elected to get things done, and that is exactly what we will do, with or without the cooperation of the Republican minority. This rule does not block a vote on approval of the Senate budget resolution, as amended. It does not interfere with the motion to instruct conferees. It simply allows the House to insist on its version of the budget resolution and to request a conference with the Senate, nothing more. So let's pass this rule and get the budget resolution into conference. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.