Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 301 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, again I would remind my colleagues that this is an open rule that allowed every Member of this House to be able to offer an amendment if that Member so desired. In fact, as the gentleman from Texas pointed out, he himself will be offering an amendment. And so I think this rule deserves support. I should point out for the record that when the gentleman's party, the Republic Party, was in the majority here, that even though I was on the Rules Committee, routinely Members were denied the right to even offer their amendments. There were 13 Members who have decided to offer amendments. Ten of them are Republican. I think this is a fair process and this rule deserves support. Having said that, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, the distinguished chairman of the Financial Services Committee (Mr. Frank).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me first of all say that I apologize to the gentleman from California, the former distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, for this open rule. I guess he is upset that 13 Members have decided to offer amendments. They have known about this bill, by the way, for close to 3 weeks. So 13 Members, 10 of them Republican, have decided to put forward amendments that will be debated and considered on this floor, including the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). I do not know whether the gentleman from California wants me to apologize to Mr. Sessions and the other Republicans for allowing their amendments to be made in order, but the bottom line is, what we are trying to do is break the trend that existed in the Rules Committee when they were in charge, which is that nobody would be allowed to offer amendments on the floor. One of the things that this leadership has promised is a more open process, a process that is more fair, and that is what we are trying to do today. There are 13 amendments that have been pre-filed. They will all be considered on the floor unless the people who printed those amendments do not want to offer them. That is a fair process. As somebody who sat on the Rules Committee for many years and who routinely saw closed rules reported under that committee with not a peep from anybody on that side, it is a little bit hard to digest this whining over an open process. I guess my colleagues on the other side of the aisle object to the fact that Members should have a right to read an amendment that they are going to vote on. I can understand that because they would routinely bring huge bills, hundreds of pages in length, to the floor without giving anybody in this Chamber the opportunity to read them. Those practices hopefully are over for good. This is a fair rule. This is an open rule, and I urge my colleagues to support it. At this point, let me inquire from the gentleman from Texas whether or not he has any additional speakers, because at this point, I am the last one on this side.

Mr. McGOVERN. I would let the gentleman proceed, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Georgia thinks this rule is such a bad idea, I hope that maybe he might reconsider offering the three amendments that he has pre-filed. Let me just say for the record, because I think it is important to state this, the gentleman from Georgia just went on a rant, and in the previous Congress when his party was in control, in the entire Congress there was one open rule that was not an appropriation bill, one, and I do not recall a single instance when the gentleman from Georgia ever came to the floor and complained about that. I do not recall a single instance when the gentleman from Georgia or, quite frankly, anybody on the other side came to the floor and objected when the Republican- controlled Rules Committee waived the requirement that Members have 3 days to be able to read a report before a bill was considered. I don't remember a single instance when the gentleman from Georgia, or, quite frankly, anybody who we have heard complain today, ever came on the House floor and voted against a closed rule. They ran this place under the most restrictive closed process in the history of this Congress. I think that needs to be said for the record because it goes to the point that I was making earlier that I don't understand what all the complaints are about. You have every Member who wanted to offer an amendment to this bill given the opportunity to do so. They knew that this bill was coming 3 weeks in advance. They could have thought about it for 3 weeks, they could have instructed their staff during that period of 3 weeks to come up with something. Obviously, a number of people did, including the gentleman from Georgia, who has three amendments we are going to have to listen to. Let me again urge my colleagues to support this rule. It is a fair rule. It is an open rule. I am sorry if they don't like the fact that Members ought to have an opportunity to read amendments and read bills before they are voted on, but I think that is a fair thing to do. Of course, when they were in charge, they would routinely waive that right. But, you know, we will respect that. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time and would ask the gentleman from Texas if he has any additional speakers.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me urge all my colleagues to support the rule and to also support the underlying bill. H.R. 1257 is a good bill. If you want to defend the status quo, then vote against it. But if you want more accountability, more transparency, then vote for it. This should not be a partisan issue, and I hope that it would get a strong bipartisan vote on passage. Let me again urge my colleagues to support the rule, and this is a rule that allows the gentleman from Texas to be able to offer an amendment. It allows the gentleman from Georgia, whom we heard earlier, to offer three amendments. It allows for every single Member of this House, Democrat or Republican, to be able to offer an amendment to this bill. This is something new compared to the way the Rules Committee was run under the previous leadership. This is a rule that allows people to be able to heard, to be able to bring their views to the floor, and to be able to debate them. For the gentleman from Texas or the gentleman from Georgia or anybody else to complain that somehow this is a restrictive rule just defies the facts. The fact of the matter is that under their leadership, restrictive rules were the norm. Closed rules were the norm. Not once, not once did I hear anybody on the other side complain about the restrictive rule or closed rule or even vote against the closed rule. This allows every single Member who wanted to offer an amendment to offer an amendment. This is an open rule with a preprinted requirement. This is a good rule. I would urge all my colleagues to support the rule.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise in support of this rule and in support of this budget resolution. It provides our families, seniors and children with economic security, health care, and nutrition. Madam Speaker, 5.4 million more people live in poverty today than in the year 2000. That is over 35 million total, and 12.4 million are children. One in every eight Americans is hungry. One in eight does not know whether they will be able to put food on the table. Madam Speaker, every single Member of this Congress should be ashamed of these statistics. The United States is the only wealthy industrialized nation in the world that tolerates widespread hunger amongst its people, including its children. The decision to tolerate hunger in America has serious costs for us as a Nation. We constantly hear that we are a Nation committed to leaving no child behind. But children who are hungry, who live in poverty, cannot keep up. They cannot develop and thrive. They cannot learn or play with energy and enthusiasm. Hunger stunts the physical, mental and emotional growth of millions of our children. When these children become adults, they are more likely to have low earnings and low productivity in the workforce. Their poor health means more illness that requires large health care expenditures. Their early mortality robs our economy of their labor and consumption. They are more likely to engage in crime, which results in monetary and personal cost to their victims and to the taxpayers for the cost of our criminal justice system. And, sadly, they are also more likely to be victims, resulting in similar costs. In other areas, we see the difficulties faced by our seniors, who are dehumanized and demoralized when they have to choose between utilities and food. Many need special diets and adequate nutrition for their medications to work effectively. But, unfortunately, hundreds of thousands lack adequate food. And when we fail to end hunger among our elderly, we choose to add to their immediate and long-term health care costs, even while we hasten their deaths. These are some of the priorities addressed in the Democratic budget resolution. This budget resolution recognizes the burden faced by families when they are forced to choose between rent, food, heat and medicine, and provides funding for children's health care and provides funding for programs like LIHEAP, Head Start and low-income housing. I want to thank Chairman Spratt for holding a budget hearing on hunger and inviting Boston pediatrician Deborah Frank and South Carolina food banker Denise Holland to testify about the urgent need to address hunger in America. I only wish more of my colleagues attended that hearing. We heard how food stamp benefits provide a first defense against hunger but are too meager to solve the problem, how food stamp benefits average just $1 per person per meal, how the minimum monthly benefit is stuck at the decades-old level of $10, and how the program is missing four in every 10 eligible people. Madam Speaker, it is unconscionable that the programs proven to attack hunger in America are continually under attack. The Commodity Food Supplemental Program is continually zeroed out by the Bush administration. The Food Stamp Program is constantly derided, with fraud, waste and abuse cited, when, according to the GAO, it is running at the most productive levels in the history of the program. It is unconscionable, Madam Speaker, that legal immigrants, people here legally with proper documentation, must wait 5 years for the food stamps they may need today, simply because they happen to be newcomers to our Nation. This is simply bad policy, and it needs to be fixed immediately. And it is unconscionable that children in need who receive breakfast and lunches during the school year are denied food during the summer months simply because school isn't in session. The next farm bill needs to invest the additional Federal resources to improve these Federal anti-hunger programs. It should improve the food stamp benefit, open eligibility to vulnerable and underserved groups, and adequately fund and fully utilize USDA resources to support emergency food assistance and other commodity assistance programs that serve the needy. This budget resolution, by providing a $20 billion reserve fund for the farm bill and by rejecting the President's arbitrary eligibility cuts to food stamps and the elimination of the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, not only makes a strong statement on the need to combat hunger in America, it actually takes concrete steps to do so. This resolution deserves support for the economic and food security it provides all our people, but, and let me stress, it is only a beginning. Ending hunger is not and should not be a partisan issue. The moral and economic costs affect every community in America. There is not a single community in America that is hunger-free. So I call upon my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to work together here in the Congress and in our communities to create the sustained and comprehensive investment necessary to end hunger and to make us a stronger Nation. One step in this path is to pass the budget resolution before us.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that this is a difficult day for me. I voted against this war from the very beginning when this vote was not politically popular. I was an original member of the Out of Iraq Caucus. As far back as 2005 I introduced legislation to end funding for the war, which I believe has been one of the worst political, military, diplomatic and moral blunders in our Nation's history. My bill calls for the immediate, safe and orderly withdrawal of all of our troops from Iraq, and I urge my colleagues to join me in that legislation. I want this war to come to an end today. Unfortunately, and to my deep disappointment, not enough of my colleagues, Democrat or Republican, believe as I do. I have come to the conclusion that defeating the supplemental bill before us today would send a message to George Bush and Dick Cheney that they will continue to have a free pass from this Congress to do whatever the hell they want to do. The Bush administration, with their ``Mission Accomplished'' banners and their shifting rationales, must be held to account. We simply cannot trust them any longer. I lost my trust in this administration a long, long time ago. I fear that defeating this bill would result in more of the same, more deceit and empty promises, more ignored benchmarks and missed deadlines, more American casualties, more debt passed on to our children and our grandchildren, more harm to our reputation around the world, and more war. I cannot do that. I will not do that. So I will vote ``yes.'' This is not the bill that I want. This is not the bill that I would have written. But it is the bill that the Appropriations Committee has presented to us today, and it is a bill that reflects the hard reality that this is the toughest measure that we can get passed and get 218 votes for. For the first time, we can mandate real and meaningful deadlines that clearly reflect the disgust so many of us have with how this war has been conducted. This bill also provides $1.7 billion to address the health care needs of our veterans, particularly those suffering from traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder. Too many of our veterans can't even get diagnosed, let alone treated. That is wrong, and this bill begins to fix it. Quite frankly, I have concluded that this bill is the best that we can do, for now. I say that very deliberately, ``for now,'' because those of us who oppose this war will continue our efforts to end it. I want all of our troops out of Iraq and back home with their families where they belong. I will propose much stronger language and, indeed, continue to press for the immediate withdrawal of all of our troops in the defense bills that are coming in the weeks ahead. My old boss, Joe Moakley, stares at me from his portrait every day in the Rules Committee. He used to say that if the Democratic Party were in Europe, we would be 16 different parties. So I want to just take a moment to commend the leadership of Dave Obey and Jack Murtha and Steny Hoyer, Jim Clyburn and Rahm Emanuel for all of their hard work these past few weeks. They have anguished over this issue, as all of us have. And I especially want to commend our Speaker, Nancy Pelosi. She has been a forceful and effective opponent of this war from the very beginning, and I know she will continue to do all that she can to bring all of us, Republicans and Democrats, together to finally bring this terrible war to an end. I am grateful to my colleagues in the Out of Iraq Caucus for their continued and forceful leadership. And I also want to thank all of the national and grass-roots activists and organizations who have done so much to oppose this war. I truly believe that the American people are way ahead of the politicians in Washington on this issue, and it is my hope that some day soon Congress and the White House will catch up.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to three outstanding citizens from the Town of Auburn, MA, a community I am both privileged and proud to represent in the U.S. Congress. Tonight the Auburn Democratic Town Committee will rightfully recognize Patricia Bukoski with its FDR Outstanding Public Service Award, and Charles and Joan Baker with its Democratic Lifetime Achievement Award at their annual Irish Night Dinner. I regret that rollcall votes prevent me from attending the event to personally congratulate them for their remarkable contributions to the greater Auburn community. Pat Bukoski is synonymous with the Auburn Housing Authority having directed the agency for fully 28 years. During her tenure, the Auburn Housing Authority received more than $4 million in Federal funding for the construction of the 60-unit Stoneville Heights Development. Pat also presided over the expansion of the Packachoag Village Development and courageously shepherded the Pheasant Court Family Housing Project to its completion. Her constant care and compassion for Auburn's elderly and less fortunate is renowned. A woman of extraordinary faith, Pat's legacy of public service is nothing short of inspiring and serves as a sterling example of what one person can accomplish on behalf of others. Charlie and Joan Baker are among the most devoted democratic activists the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has ever produced. Their tireless efforts on behalf of dozens of democratic candidates for local, State and national office now span more than half a century. I have personally benefited from their wise counsel and steadfast support and will forever be grateful for their loyalty. Few couples can lay claim to having helped elect as many leaders as Charlie and Joan Baker. The only reward they have ever sought was the quiet pride and satisfaction of having supported good and decent people for public office. Charlie and Joan's political activism is rivaled only by their combined record of service to the Town of Auburn. Charlie's tenure as a town meeting member, selectmen and now Town Moderator is without equal. Joan also served as a town meeting member and together they are widely regarded by many as the ``first couple'' of Auburn. Madam Speaker, Patricia Bukoski, Charlie Baker, and Joan Baker are richly deserving of the recognition bestowed upon them tonight by the Auburn Democratic Town Committee. The United States of America owes each of them a debt of gratitude for their service and I humbly offer the congratulations of the U.S. House of Representatives to them on this very special occasion.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me first thank my colleague from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for his courtesy and also thank the gentlewoman from Florida for her leadership on the Rules Committee and for her spectacular handling of this rule today before us. I appreciate all of her insights and advocacy on behalf of clean water and environmental issues. I want to make clear for the record that this entire House should be grateful for her leadership. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule. It is a fair rule. There are three Democratic amendments and three Republican amendments. They cover the many issues brought before the Rules Committee last night. I want to take a moment to address one issue, and that is the issue of Davis-Bacon. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) said that the Democrats are going to win and the Republicans are going to lose on this vote. Well, let me say I would recharacterize it. I think the American people and the American workers are going to win if we keep the Davis-Bacon provisions. I know many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't like Davis-Bacon and who don't believe that people should be paid the prevailing wage, who don't believe that the workers of this country should be paid a livable wage. Well, the majority in this Congress today believes the opposite. I bet many people on the gentleman's side of the aisle believe as well. Workers in this country are working longer hours and harder than ever before, and they can't make ends meet. We shouldn't have a rush to the bottom when it comes to the wages of the workers in this country. We need to stand firm and stand tall for the workers of this country to ensure that they get paid a livable wage so they can support their families, so they have health care and pension benefits. That is what this debate is about. So, today, my colleagues who don't like Davis-Bacon will have a choice. They have an amendment in order that can rip Davis-Bacon out of this bill. They can eliminate Davis-Bacon. They can eliminate the prevailing wage. They can eliminate a livable wage for workers. Or you can stand with the majority in this Congress for workers, for the prevailing wage, for Davis-Bacon, for a livable wage; and that is the right thing to do.

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. It is this gentleman's opinion that what the gentleman is trying to do is to chip away at Davis-Bacon, chip away at workers' rights and chip away at the prevailing wage and chip away at making sure that workers get a livable wage, and this gentleman is very much opposed to that.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, Congress has long recognized the need to protect our nation's water supply. Over three decades ago, we passed the Clean Water Act (CWA) establishing a federal program to aid wastewater treatment plant construction and upgrades. And, in the years since, over $76.5 billion has been provided to assist cities in building and upgrading sewage infrastructure. Ask any mayor or council member in your district, and I am certain that they will agree this money has been well-spent helping communities to prevent the discharge of waste into surface waters. Unfortunately, while funding needs have increased over the years (21% between 1996 and 2000), Congress has yet to increase its appropriations to meet this growing demand. In the end, our cities and towns have been left to cover many of these costs alone. In my district, the city of Fall River has been undertaking significant wastewater upgrades, costing in excess of $100 million. Within the community, there is strong support for complying with the Clean Water Act, and the city itself has devoted a significant amount of public funds to support this effort. But, the reality is that without federal assistance, they would be unable to meet the standards mandated by the CWA. The towns of Westborough and Shrewsbury share a treatment plant and are facing similar challenges with costly upgrades. And in my hometown, the Upper Blackstone Water Pollution Abatement District servicing the City of Worcester and surrounding communities has found itself in a nearly identical position. Similarly, the city of Marlborough operates two wastewater treatment plants; one on the easterly side of the City discharges into the Hop Brook River and the second on the westerly side of the City discharges into the Assabet River. Under the conditions of the City's NPDES permits, they are required to make substantial upgrades to both of their treatment plants. The City of Marlborough's engineering consultant estimates these upgrades to cost between $60 and $80 million depending on whether the City is required to recharge into the groundwater as opposed as directly into the river. Over the years, I have worked to obtain some modest direct federal financial relief for these projects, but it has been clear that the needs of these two cities have far exceeded the funding available. In fact, under the Republican-led Congress, funding for the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund, which addresses critical water infrastructure needs, was slashed by 34 percent. And, though sewer overflow grants were authorized for 2002 and 2003, the Republican leadership refused to appropriate any funds and let the authorization expire. In the end, this failure to increase federal funding for these programs is what makes the Clean Water Act an unfunded mandate in the eyes of the cities and towns we are all elected to represent. And that is why this legislation we have before us today, H.R. 569, is so important. It authorizes $1.5 billion in grants to local communities over the next five years to prevent dangerous sewer overflow. Such funding will be invaluable to communities like Fall River and Marlborough, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 569.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New York for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the escalation of U.S. forces in Iraq and I strongly oppose this war. We had no basis or justification or right to invade Iraq. It was a mistake. There are no easy answers or solutions before us. No matter what option we pursue, there is no nice, neat, happy ending. Sometimes you can't fix mistakes. Hopefully we can make this awful situation less awful. This war should never have happened. That is not just my opinion, it is the opinion of many of the top military leaders in our country. The war has diminished our standing in the world. It has been used as a recruiting tool by the very terrorists we say we want to defeat. It has cost us hundreds of billions of dollars. And, most significantly, we have sacrificed the precious lives of so many of our brave servicemen and women, and thousands more have returned home severely wounded. Now, I have listened as many of my colleagues have come to the floor and said we must follow our leader and be quiet. Some have even suggested that those of us who support this resolution and want this war to end are doing a disservice to our troops. Mr. Speaker, for 4 long years, Congress has done absolutely nothing in the face of mistake after mistake after mistake in Iraq. None of us in this Chamber have to wake up tomorrow in Baghdad or Fallujah or Tikrit. None of us have to wake up each morning and go on patrol in Anbar Province. None of us in this Chamber are in harm's way. But we are all responsible, all of us, just like the President, for assigning tens of thousands of our bravest young men and women for being referees in a sectarian civil war. If we truly want to protect our troops, if we truly are concerned with their safety and well-being, then bring them home and reunite them with their families. Newsweek columnist Anna Quindlen put it this way: ``There is no better way to support those fighting in Iraq than to guarantee that no more of them die in the service of political miscalculation.'' Mr. Speaker, the American people are way ahead of the politicians in Washington. Citizens of all political persuasions are sick and tired of the political spin and political posturing. Our focus should not be about saving face. Instead, it should be about saving lives. The people of this country have been misled, they have been deceived, and they have been lied to. Increasingly, people do not trust their government to tell the truth on the war. Mr. Speaker, I don't trust my government to tell me the truth about this war. There is no military victory to be had. The only hope is a political solution. The Iraqi Government and the Iraqi people have the power and the ability to move in a different direction, a direction that seeks to calm sectarian violence and heal sectarian divides, respect the rights of all citizens and uphold the rule of law that applies to everyone equally. But they have to choose that path themselves. Regrettably, I have little confidence that the current Iraqi Government will make such a choice. I hope I am wrong. Mr. Speaker, it is essential to change the dynamic inside Iraq, and to do that it is essential that we dramatically change our policy. That means we must end the U.S. occupation and begin an all-out diplomatic effort to promote reconciliation and an end to the violence. That means we should begin the immediate, safe and orderly withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. That means we should provide protection and political asylum to those in Iraq who have assisted us and who may be in danger because of it. That also means that the United States must demonstrate the maturity and the common sense to talk to political leaders and to countries we don't like, including Syria and Iran. None of this will be pleasant, none of this will be easy and there are no guarantees that it will work. But I am sure of one thing: What we are doing now is failing. What we are doing now is not healing the divisions in Iraq and is not serving the best national security interests of the United States. Our own intelligence agencies have reported to us that this war is creating more terrorists. No one in this House enjoys this discussion. Some, I know, wish that somehow this issue would go away. But, Mr. Speaker, it won't. So no matter how uncomfortable this debate is for some of my colleagues, it is long overdue. The message that Congress will hopefully send tomorrow by passing this resolution is one that the American people want us to send and one that the President needs to hear. President Lyndon Johnson once remarked, ``It is easy to get into a war, but hard as hell to get out of one.'' The choices before us in the next weeks and months will not be easy. Indeed, it will be difficult, even painful, to extricate ourselves from this war. But it is the right thing to do. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution which strongly supports our troops and opposes this escalation

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by first thanking my colleagues, Tom Lantos, Ike Skelton and Walter Jones for working together in a bipartisan way to create this very simple, straightforward and clear resolution. Their work will allow this House to have a full and fair debate and, at the end of this week, have a clear up-or-down vote on whether or not we support or oppose the President's plan to escalate this war in Iraq. I also want to thank all my colleagues on the Rules Committee for a very thoughtful and productive debate last night. Mr. Speaker, the American people are way ahead of the politicians in Washington on this issue. They want this war ended, and they want our troops to come home. Any Member of this House who has been home recently knows that the questions are increasing, the concern is growing, and the patience is running out. The American people are tired of the bickering and partisan posturing. They are also tired of people trying to muddy the waters and confuse the issue. They want their leaders to be less concerned with saving political face and more concerned with saving lives. It is my hope that at the end of this debate, the House will send a strong bipartisan message to the President of the United States that it is time to change course in Iraq. I hope that the President will listen and will take the opportunity to sit down with us, roll up his sleeves and do the hard but necessary work of bringing this tragic war to an end. If he does not, if he continues to ignore the will of the Congress and of the American people, then we will have no choice but to go beyond nonbinding resolutions. Mr. Speaker, Members like me, who believe it is time to exercise the power of the purse, will get that opportunity when we take up the President's supplemental appropriations request and the fiscal year 2008 defense bills. The best way to support our troops is to bring them home safely to their families. The best way to protect them is to begin their immediate, safe and orderly withdrawal from Iraq. But this week we are focused, rightly in my opinion, on the narrow and important question of whether we support the President's desire to escalate the war. The irony is that Members of this House will be given more time to debate this nonbinding resolution than they were given by the previous majority on the question of authorizing the war itself. Mr. Speaker, this is not a meaningless exercise, which is what some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said. For the first time in 4 years, the people's House will be on record opposing the President's policy in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, the American people are watching. They want to know where each Member stands on the issue of escalating the war in Iraq. That is the issue before us today. That is the only issue we shall be debating. It is what the American people want to know, and it is what the President of the United States needs to hear.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, last month, on January 12th, Senator George McGovern spoke at the National Press Club about what he would advise President Bush to do on the Iraq War. At 84 years of age, and as a veteran of World War II, Senator McGovern has the experience and knowledge that leads him to focus on the important questions surrounding this critical policy question. I hope all my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, will review Senator McGovern's remarks and ask the same questions of our president. Remarks by Senator George McGovern to the National Press Club [Jan. 12, 2007] I'm glad to be back at the National Press Club. Indeed, at the age of 84, I'm glad to be anywhere. In my younger years when the subject of aging came up, trying to sound worldly wise, I would say, ``It doesn't matter so much the number of years you have, but what you do with those years.'' I don't say that anymore. I now want to reach a hundred. Why? Because I thoroughly enjoy life and there are so many things I must still do before entering the mystery beyond. The most urgent of these is to get American soldiers out of the Iraqi hellhole Bush-Cheney and their neo-conservative theorists have created in what was once called the cradle of civilization. It is believed to be the location of the Garden of Eden. I mention the neo-conservative theorists to recall Walter Lippman's observance, ``There is nothing so dangerous as a belligerent professor.'' One of the things I miss about my 18 years in the U.S. Senate are the stories of the old Southern Democrats. I didn't always vote with them, but I loved their technique of responding to an opponent's questions with a humorous story. Once when Senator Sam Ervin of North Carolina had to handle a tough question from Mike Mansfield, he said, ``You know, Mr. Leader, that question reminds me of the old Baptist preacher who was telling a class of Sunday school boys the creation story. `God created Adam and Eve and from this union came two sons, Cain and Abel and thus the human race developed.' A boy in the class then asked, `Reverend, where did Cain and Abel get their wives?' After frowning for a moment, the preacher replied, `Young man--it's impertinent questions like that that's hurtin' religion.' '' Well, Mr. Bush, Jr. I have some impertinent questions for you. Mr. President, Sir, when reporter Bob Woodward asked you if you had consulted with your father before ordering our army into Iraq you said, ``No, he's not the father you call on a decision like this. I talked to my heavenly Father above.'' My question, Mr. President: If God asked you to bombard, invade and occupy Iraq for four years, why did he send an opposite message to the Pope? Did you not know that your father, George Bush, Sr., his Secretary of State James Baker and his National Security Advisor General Skowcroft were all opposed to your invasion? Wouldn't you, our troops, the American people and the Iraqis all be much better off if you had listened to your more experienced elders including your earthly father? Instead of blaming God for the awful catastrophe you have unleashed in Iraq, wouldn't it have been less self-righteous if you had fallen back on the oft-quoted explanation of wrongdoing, ``The devil made me do it?'' And Mr. President, after the 9-11 hit against the Twin Towers in New York, which gained us the sympathy and support of the entire world, why did you then order the invasion of Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9-11? Are you aware that your actions destroyed the international reservoir of good will towards the United States? What is the cost to America of shattering the standing and influence of our country in the eyes of the world? Why, Mr. President did you pressure the CIA to report falsely that Iraq was building weapons of mass destruction including nuclear weapons? And when you ordered your Secretary of State, Colin Powell, to go to New York and present to the U.N. the Administration's ``evidence'' that Iraq was an imminent nuclear threat to the United States, were you aware that after reading this deceitful statement to the U.N., Mr. Powell told an aid that the so-called evidence was ``bullshit''? Is it reasonable to you, President Bush, that Colin Powell told you near the end of your first term that he would not be in your administration if you were to receive a second term? What decent person could survive two full terms of forced lying and deceit? And Mr. President, how do you enjoy your leisure time, and how can you sleep at night knowing that 3014 young Americans have died in a war you mistakenly ordered? What do you say to the 48,000 young Americans who have been crippled for life in mind or body? What is your reaction to the conclusion of the leading British medical journal (Lancet) that since you ordered the bombardment and occupation of Iraq four years ago, 600 thousand Iraqi men, women and children have been killed? What do you think of the destruction of the Iraqi's homes, their electrical and water systems, their public buildings? And Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, while neither of you has ever been in combat (Mr. Cheney asking and receiving five deferments from the Vietnam War), have you not at least read or been briefed on the terrible costs of that ill-advised and seemingly endless American war in tiny Vietnam? Do you realize that another Texas President, Lyndon Baines Johnson, declined to seek a second term in part because he had lost his credibility over the disastrous war in Vietnam? Are you aware that one of the chief architects of that war, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, resigned his office and years later published a book declaring that the war was all a tragic mistake? Do you know this recent history in which 58,000 young Americans died in the process of killing 2 million Vietnamese men, women and children? If you do not know about this terrible blunder in Vietnam, are you not ignoring the conclusion of one of our great philosophers: ``Those who are ignorant of history are condemned to repeat it.'' And, Mr. President, in your ignorance of the lessons of Vietnam, are you not condemning our troops and our people to repeat the same tragedy in Iraq? During the long years between 1964 and 1975 when I fought to end the American war in Vietnam, first as a U.S. Senator from South Dakota and then as my party's nominee for President, my four daughters ganged up on my one night. ``Dad, why don't you give up this battle? You've been speaking out against this crazy war since we were little kids. When you won the Democratic presidential nomination, you got snowed under by President Nixon.'' In reply I said, ``Just remember that sometimes in history even a tragic mistake produces something good. The good about Vietnam is that it is such a terrible blunder, we'll never go down that road again.'' Mr. President, we're going down that road again. So, what do I tell my daughters? And what do you tell your daughters? Mr. President, I do not speak either as a pacifist or a draft dodger. I speak as one who after the attack on Pearl Harbor, volunteered at the age of nineteen for the Army Air Corps and flew 35 missions as a B-24 bomber. I believed in that war then and I still do 65 years later. And so did the rest of America. Mr. President, are you missing the intellectual and moral capacity to know the difference between a justified war and a war of folly in Vietnam or Iraq? Public opinion polls indicate that two-thirds of the American people think that the war in Iraq has been a mistake on your part. It is widely believed that this war was the central reason Democrats captured control of both houses of Congress. Polls among the people of Iraq indicate that nearly all Iraqis want our military presence in their country for the last four years to end now. Why do you persist in defying public opinion in both the United States and Iraq and throughout the other countries around the globe? Do you see yourself as omniscient? What is your view of the doctrine of self-determination, which we Americans hold dear? And wonder of wonders, Mr. President, after such needless death and destruction, first in the Vietnamese jungle and now in the Arabian desert, how can you order 21,500 more American troops to Iraq? Are you aware that as the war in Vietnam went from bad to worse, our leaders sent in more troops and wasted more billions of dollars until we had 550,000 U.S. troops in that little country? It makes me shudder as an aging bomber pilot to remember that we dropped more bombs on the Vietnamese and their country than the total of all the bombs dropped by all the air forces around the world in World War II. Do you, Mr. President, honestly believe that we need tens of thousands of additional troops plus a supplemental military appropriation of 200 billion dollars before we can bring our troops home from this nightmare in ancient Baghdad? In your initial campaign for the Presidency, Mr. Bush, you described yourself as a ``compassionate conservative.'' What is compassionate about consigning America's youth to a needless and seemingly endless war that has now lasted longer than World War II? And what is conservative about reducing the taxes needed to finance this war and instead running our national debt to nine trillion dollars with money borrowed from China, Japan, Germany and Britain? Is this wild deficit financing your idea of conservatism? Mr. President, how can a true conservative be indifferent to the steadily rising cost of a war that claims over seven billion dollars a month, 237 million dollars every day? Are you troubled to know as a conservative that just the interest on our skyrocketing national debt is $760,000 every day? Mr. President, our Nobel Prize winning economist, Joseph Stiglitz, estimates that if the war were to continue until 2010 as you have indicated it might, the cost would be over a trillion dollars. Perhaps, Mr. President, you should ponder the words of a genuine conservative--England's 19th Century member of Parliament, Edmund Burke: ``A conscientious man would be cautious how he dealt in blood.'' And, Mr. President at a time when your most respected generals have concluded that the chaos and conflict in Iraq cannot be resolved by more American dollars and more American young bodies, do you ever consider the needs here at home of our own anxious and troubled society? What about the words of another true conservative, General and President Dwight Eisenhower who said that, ``Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.'' And, Mr. President, would not you and all the rest of us do well to ponder the farewell words of President Eisenhower: ``In the councils of government; we must guard against the acquisition of the unwarranted influence of the military- industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.'' Finally, Mr. President, I ask have you kept your oath of office to uphold the Constitution when you use what you call the war on terrorism to undermine the Bill of Rights? On what constitutional theory do you seize and imprison suspects without charge, sometimes torturing them in foreign jails? On what constitutional or legal basis have you tapped the phones of Americans without approval of the courts as required by law? Are you above the Constitution, above the law, and above the Geneva accords? If we are fighting for freedom in Iraq as you say, why are you so indifferent to protecting liberty here in America? Many Americans are now saying in effect, ``The American war in Iraq has created a horrible mess but how can we now walk away from it?'' William Polk, a former Harvard and University of Chicago professor of Middle East Studies and a former State Department expert on the Middle East, has teamed up with me on a recent book requested by Simon and Schuster. It is entitled, ``Out of Iraq: A Practical Plan for Withdrawal Now.'' I feel awkward praising it, so I give you the respected journalist of the New York Times, and now of Newsweek, Anna Quindlen who told Charlie Rose on his excellent TV program: ``There is a wonderful book I am recommending to everyone. It's a very small, readable book by George McGovern and William Polk called ``Out of Iraq''. And it just very quickly runs you through the history of the country, the makeup of the country, how we got in, the arguments for getting in--many of which don't withstand scrutiny--and how we can get out. It's like a little primer. I think the entire nation should read it and then we will be united.'' If you need a second for the judgment of Anna Quindlen, I give you the esteemed Library Journal: ``In this crisp and cogently argued book, former Senator McGovern and scholar Polk offer a trenchant and straightforward critique of the war in Iraq. What makes their highly readable book unique is that it not only argues why the United States needs to disengage militarily from Iraq now . . . but also clearly delineates practical steps for troop withdrawal . . . Essential reading for anybody who wants to cut through the maze of confusion that surrounds current U.S. policy in Iraq, this book is highly recommended for public and academic libraries.'' Professor Polk is a descendant of President Polk and the brother of the noted George Polk, is here today from his home in southern France and he will join me at the podium as I conclude this impartial interrogation of President Bush. And now, members of the National Press Club and your guests, it' s your turn to cross-examine Bill Polk and me in, of course, an equally impartial manner.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Vermont (Mr. Welch) for yielding me the time to speak on this open rule, and I congratulate him for managing his first rule in this body. And I should say that after listening to the previous speaker, my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), I have a bad case of whiplash, first, because when his party was in the majority, he routinely supported closed rules and, second, because when his party was in the majority, I can't recall a time when he supported waiving germaneness rules for a Democratic amendment. Now, having said that, I want to tell my colleagues that the gentleman from Vermont is part of an extraordinary new group of Members who are helping to change the culture in Washington. And I thank him for bringing forward this open rule. These new Members, the ``majority makers,'' as the majority leader likes to call them, were elected to this body because they stand for change. They stand for openness, transparency and honesty. They spoke truth to power during the 2006 elections, Mr. Speaker, and they are here to do what is in the best interests of their constituents and the American people. Mr. Speaker, with this open rule, the gentleman from Vermont is carrying forward the promise these new Members made to the voters. Now, some of us who have been around here for a while and lived under the previous Republican leadership may have forgotten what an open rule looks like. I thought it was extinct, except on appropriations bills. But the rule that we are considering today is open, and that means that any germane amendment offered by any Member, Democrat or Republican, can be debated and voted on by this body. It is the way a deliberative body should act. Now let me assure my friends on the other side of the aisle that this is not the only open rule that you will see in this Congress. This is the return of the House of Representatives as a deliberative body. And I am also pleased to note that with this open rule we have equaled, in 1 month, the number of open rules provided by the previous Republican majority on nonappropriations bills in the 2 years of the 109th Congress. Mr. Speaker, I am proud that this new majority has moved in such a fashion, and I am proud that we were able to organize this House and, at the same time, pass meaningful legislation that will affect everyday Americans across this great Nation. A higher minimum wage, stem cell research, reduction in student loan interest rates, an increase in Pell Grants, ethics reform to clean up the culture of corruption that existed in the previous Congress, these are just a few of the accomplishments of this new majority in just 1 month. Now we are moving on to the next phase, Mr. Speaker. Most of the House committees are organized, and they are beginning to hold hearings and they are producing legislation. The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the Judiciary Committee recently held markups. The Ways and Means Committee and Financial Services Committee are scheduling markups as we speak. Legislation these committees produce will come to the Rules Committee, and we look forward to trying to bring that legislation to the floor in a more open and honest fashion than we experienced in the previous Congress. Mr. Speaker, the 110th Congress is a new Congress, but it is also a different Congress, and I am pleased to be able to serve with new Members like Mr. Welch of Vermont, who is managing this open rule; Kathy Castor; Mike Arcuri; Betty Sutton; along with Dennis Cardoza, who is also new to the Rules Committee. These Members are ushering in a new era in helping shape this new direction for the House of Representatives. So I want to thank my friend from Vermont for the time. I congratulated him on this open rule, his first, but certainly not his last.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I want to thank my colleague from Massachusetts, Barney Frank, for organizing this Special Order, and I want to thank him for his beautiful words paying tribute to Father Drinan as well as my other colleague from Massachusetts, Ed Markey, for his very beautiful words honoring a truly great man. I feel truly privileged to have known Father Drinan. As was made clear by the previous speakers, he was a remarkable man, remarkable in his incredible faith and remarkable in his strong political beliefs. I think all of us who knew Bob Drinan will miss him; however, I believe that even those who didn't know Father Drinan personally will feel a great sense of loss, because we have lost a man who was truly dedicated to good. He was a man of unbelievable intellect, of unbelievable conviction and compassion. He also was a man with a great sense of humor. You know, the day after his passing, I delivered a tribute to him on this House floor, and I recalled his early and steadfast opposition to the war in Vietnam and his most recent opposition to the war in Iraq. He thought both wars were senseless and moral blunders. Father Drinan was someone who spoke his mind, regardless of the political polls or political consequences. Indeed, many of his closest allies would caution him to be careful in some of his pronouncements on some of the more controversial issues that he took on. But even when his words were controversial, he had this kind of uncanny knack of usually being proven right; and whether it was the war in Vietnam or whether it was his call for the impeachment of Richard Nixon, he turned out to be right, on those issues and so many other issues. I admired his commitment to peace and human rights. Whether it was speaking out on behalf of Jews who were being persecuted by the former Soviet Union or, as mentioned, whether it was his advocacy on behalf of so many people in Central America who were victimized by the wars that engulfed that region of the world in the late 1970s and early 1980s, nobody was more dedicated to human rights than Bob Drinan. When raising his voice in Congress and trying to change U.S. policy was not enough, he would travel to the countries where people were being oppressed to speak out. Those of us who were involved in El Salvador during the 1980s recall with great admiration his visit to that country in the midst of a civil war where he said mass alongside of Archbishop Oscar Romero. Only a few months after that visit, Archbishop Romeo was murdered by Salvadoran death squads. We also remember in 1989 when six Jesuit priests were murdered by the Salvadoran military. I was working for Congressman Joe Moakley at the time, who was investigating those killings. Father Drinan spoke up forcefully, demanding justice in that case. It is also important to note that his service to people did not end when he left the House of Representatives. He continued to advocate for what was right and just in his teachings, his lectures, his numerous TV appearances and his writings. Many of us would get calls from him, Did you see my piece in the National Catholic Reporter, he would ask, or we would get letters citing specific passages in a book that he wrote or a book that he read or some article that he thought was worth mentioning. He would sometimes suggest we use the material in a speech or perhaps insert something in the Congressional Record. He never stopped making a difference. I have also had the privilege over the years of attending many dinners with Father Drinan. He always kind of held court. All the attention focused on Father Drinan because he was brilliant, and he had well-thought-out answers to every single policy question that ever existed. Over the last several days, I have attended his calling hours at Georgetown University and his funeral mass at St. Aloysius Church here in Washington. I was struck by how many people whose lives he had touched. So many of them had dedicated their lives and their careers to public service and education. He inspired people, and the only thing that he scorned was indifference. Mark Gearan, who was a former staffer of Father Drinan and who actually met his wife Mary Hurley working on Father Drinan's campaign, is now the President of Hobart and William Smith Colleges in New York, and he recently wrote an article that appeared in the Boston Globe entitled, ``Father Drinan was our unfailing champion.'' I would just like to read a passage here: ``But for me and countless others, it was his role as a mentor that distinguished Father Drinan. Amid the pressures of tough campaigns and congressional duties, he always reached out to young staff and encouraged their interest in politics and policy. He took time to ask your opinion on issues and was genuinely interested in knowing why you felt that way. `Tell me something I don't know,' he would bark out in an elevator ride or driving to the airport. A tough assignment to respond to the author of 12 books with such a keen and inquisitive mind.'' I recall one time attending a speech that Father Drinan gave before the Americas for Democratic Action here in Washington, D.C. When his speech was over with, he asked me what did you think. I said it was a great speech. He said what specifically did you like about the speech. I had to think for a minute. But the bottom line was Bob Drinan was not interested in just empty plaudits. He wanted to know what moved people, what worked, how to get things done, how to move an audience. This country is better off, not just because of Father Drinan. This country is better off because of the countless people he brought into the political process, people who love this country, people who want to make a difference, people who want to change it for the better. Several years ago, I attended a graduation commencement ceremony, and the late John Kenneth Galbraith was the speaker, and he said to the audience of students, I would ask you to go out and comfort the afflicted, but given the current political climate that might be considered eccentric. So instead I will ask you to go out and afflict the comfortable. That is what Father Drinan did, and that is what we are going to miss, a truly great man who did some extraordinary things not only for this country but for people all over the world. Let me close as I began by saying I feel it a great privilege I had the opportunity to get to know this wonderful man, and I thank my colleague.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, there is no issue more important to the American people and to the Members of this Congress than the war in Iraq. Over 3,000 American military personnel have been killed in this war. Over 22,000 have been wounded in combat-related action. Some have been injured for life. Several thousand more of our troops have sustained serious injuries or suffered sickness while serving in Iraq; and tens of thousands of Iraqi men, women, and children dead. So far, it has cost the United States $387 billion, and next week we will receive another supplemental request from the President in the range of $100 billion to $130 billion more. In blood, in treasure, the costs of the war in Iraq have been high. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we must change the dynamic in Iraq. We must end our occupation, engage the countries in the region to help the Iraqis negotiate an end to the sectarian violence tearing their country apart, and let the Iraqi people determine their own destiny. I firmly believe, Mr. Speaker, there is no military victory to be had in Iraq. So I am convinced that we must focus our efforts on the uniformed men and women we have put in harm's way and bring them safely home. This is why I am introducing today the Safe and Orderly Withdrawal from Iraq Act. This is a very straightforward bill, Mr. Speaker. Within 30 days of enactment, the United States would initiate a safe, orderly, and responsible withdrawal of all U.S. military forces from Iraq. The withdrawal would take no more than 6 months and include the transfer to the Iraqi government of all bases and facilities that have been operated or occupied by U.S. military personnel. During the withdrawal period, funding is maintained to ensure that our forces have the ability to complete or transfer their duties in an orderly manner, defend themselves as necessary, and be fully supported as they move out of Iraq. Once the withdrawal is completed, defense funding for the war would end. Under this bill, financial support and equipment could continue to be provided to the Iraqi security forces or to a multilateral force the Iraqi government might request for help in continuing the training of their forces and in providing security during the period of withdrawal and afterwards. Nothing in this bill affects U.S. funding for economic and social reconstruction projects. The bill also allows the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to complete reconstruction projects currently under way should the Iraqi government make such a request. Finally, the bill asserts the authority of the President to arrange asylum for those Iraqi citizens who might be physically endangered by the withdrawal of our military presence. As we all know, many Iraqi civilians have bravely served our Armed Forces as translators, drivers, administrative staff and in other capacities. Should they be threatened with violence or retaliation because of their association with our forces, we should extend to them the protection they require and that they deserve. Mr. Speaker, this bill does not walk away from Iraq. It maintains financial equipment and material support for the Iraqi military and security forces. It continues economic, social and reconstruction assistance for Iraq, and its impact would trigger greater diplomatic engagement in the region which is missing at the present moment. Mr. Speaker, there are no easy answers for the many questions facing Iraq's future. There is no perfect legislative answer for the situation in Iraq. But I do know that our troops do not belong in the crossfire of a violent Iraqi sectarian war. The American people understand this. They are far ahead of the politicians in Washington. They want us to do what is right. They want us to bring our troops home, and they want that to happen in a safe, orderly and responsible manner. Mr. Speaker, I believe that this war in Iraq is a moral blunder. I believe that the war in Iraq represents one of the biggest political, diplomatic and military mistakes in our history. It is time for us to end this war. I urge my colleagues to support the Safe and Orderly Withdrawal from Iraq Act.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, Father Robert Drinan, a former Member of this House and a champion for the cause of peace and justice, died yesterday. Father Drinan was a hero and a friend. He recognized early the folly of the Vietnam War, and he fought to end it. He was a critic of the current and senseless war in Iraq. He was outspoken and not faint on issues of human rights here at home and around the world. He was a friend to the poor, a courageous advocate for civil rights and civil liberties, and a well-respected legal scholar. He was also a Jesuit priest who was proud of his vocation and dedicated to the teachings of the Church. We developed a strong friendship over the years. I certainly sought his advice and counsel on many, many issues; and he never hesitated to provide it. He called regularly, sent me articles and speeches, and always urged me to stand strong for what is right. Mr. Speaker, our country, and indeed the world, is better off because of Bob Drinan. My condolences go out to his family and friends. He was a remarkable man and a true inspiration and he will be missed. Mr. Speaker, I ask to insert in the Record a copy of an article which appeared in today's Boston Globe honoring Father Drinan. [From boston.com, Jan. 29, 2007] Congressman-Priest Drinan Dies (By Mark Feeney) The Rev. Robert F. Drinan, who left Boston College's administration to become the first Roman Catholic priest elected to Congress and who in 1973 filed the initial impeachment resolution against President Richard M. Nixon, died yesterday at Sibley Memorial Hospital in Washington, D.C. He was 86. The cause of death was pneumonia and congestive heart failure, said a spokeswoman for Georgetown University, where Father Drinan taught legal ethics and other subjects to more than 6,000 students during the past 26 years. ``Father Drinan was a forever gentle, resilient, tenacious advocate for social justice and fundamental decency,'' said Senator John F. Kerry, who was Father Drinan's campaign manager in 1970. ``He lived out in public life the whole cloth of Catholic teachings. In the most divisive days of Vietnam when things were coming apart, this incredible man and most unlikely of candidates showed America how a man of faith could be a man of peace .'' A five-term member of the House of Representatives, Father Drinan was one of its most liberal members. His strong anti- administration stands earned him a place on the Nixon ``enemies list.'' His upset victory over U.S. Representative Philip J. Philbin, a 14-term incumbent who was vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, in the 1970 Democratic primary in Massachusetts Third Congressional District was a high-water mark in the New Politics, which brought the antiwar movement to the ballot box. Father Drinan's election was also a landmark in U.S. church-state relations. A Catholic priest, the Rev. Gabriel Richard, had served in Congress in 1822 as a nonvoting delegate from Michigan Territory, but he had been appointed. And many Protestant clerics had served as U.S. representatives. Yet the sight of Father Drinan in the halls of Congress in his Roman collar was startling. Some even questioned the propriety of his wearing a cleric's collar and black suit on the floor of the House. Father Drinan had a standard response. ``It's the only suit I own,'' he'd quip. Before entering politics, the Jesuit priest had long served as dean at Boston College Law School. Supporters saw his entering Congress as a logical union of his legal and spiritual vocations. ``Our father, who art in Congress'' became a popular, if unofficial, campaign slogan. Yet many of Father Drinan's most vehement detractors were Catholics who opposed him politically because they saw his electoral career as detracting from his priestly calling. He further angered some Catholics with his show of independence from the church, supporting federal funding of abortions and opposing constitutional amendments that would have banned abortion and allowed prayer in public schools. In 1980, Pope John Paul II ordered Father Drinan to either forgo reelection or leave the priesthood. With ``regret and pain,'' Father Drinan announced he would not seek reelection. ``It is just unthinkable,'' he said of the idea of renouncing the priesthood to stay in office. ``I am proud and honored to be a priest and a Jesuit. As a person of faith, I must believe that there is work for me to do which somehow will be more important than the work I am required to leave.'' Father Drinan's unexpected announcement set off a scramble among prospective successors. The winner was U.S. Representative Barney Frank, then a state representative from Beacon Hill. In announcing that he would not run again, Father Drinan described himself as ``a moral architect.'' It was an apt description of his political career. His election in 1970 was as much crusade as campaign, charged with a moral fervor that would characterize his entire political career. Father Drinan's critics called him `the mad monk.'' In the context of those highly charged times, it could as easily be considered praise. ``He envisions political power as a moral power,'' Ralph Nader, the consumer advocate, once said. More advocate than legislator, Father Drinan was an outsider on Capitol Hill. (``You have collegiality much more in the church than you do in Congress,'' he said in a 1974 Globe interview.) A wag likened his membership on the House Internal Security Committee, the successor to the House Committee on Un- American Activities, ``which Father Drinan wanted to dissolve, to ``an atheist belonging to the World Council of Churches.'' As a member of the House Judiciary Committee, Father Drinan gained a national profile in the summer of 1974 when the committee's hearings considering Nixon's impeachment were televised. The hearings would have taken place a year earlier, had Father Drinan had his way. On July 31, 1973, he introduced the first resolution to impeach the president-- though not for any high crimes and misdemeanors relating to the Watergate scandal, but rather over the administration's secret bombing campaign in Cambodia. Father Drinan prided himself on having filed that resolution. But its timing dismayed the House Democratic leadership, which thought it premature and counterproductive. ``Morally, Drinan had a good case,'' then-House Speaker Thomas P. O'Neill Jr. noted in his memoirs. ``But politically, he damn near blew it. For if Drinan's resolution had come up for a vote at the time he filed it, it would have been overwhelmingly defeated--by something like 400 to 20. After that, with most of the members already on record as having voted once against impeachment, it would have been extremely difficult to get them to change their minds later on.'' In 1975, Father Drinan filed an impeachment resolution against U.S. ambassador to Iran Richard Helms for his activities as director of the Central Intelligence Agency. That same year, Father Drinan was chief plaintiff in a suit filed by 21 Democratic congressmen to block U.S. military involvement in Cambodia. It was later dismissed. Robert Frederick Drinan was born in Boston, the son of James John Drinan and Ann Mary (Flanagan) Drinan. Father Drinan grew up in Hyde Park. He played clarinet with the Boston Civic Symphony and participated on the debating team at Boston College. He entered the Society of Jesus in 1942, after earning his bachelor's degree at Boston College. Father Drinan did his seminary work at Weston College in Cambridge. (Daniel Berrigan, who would later become a noted peace activist, was a classmate.) He received a master's from Boston College in 1947 and two law degrees from Georgetown University Law Center, the first in 1949 and a master's in law in 1951. Ordained in 1953, he received a doctorate in theology at Rome's Gregorian University. In 1955, he returned to Boston College as associate dean and professor at its law school. He became dean a year later, a position he held until 1969. Father Drinan served as Boston College's vice president and provost from 1969 to 1970. During his deanship, the law school went from being ``a moribund institution,'' as a federal judge once described it, to ranking among the nation's more highly regarded law schools. Father Drinan found himself increasingly involved in public issues. He served as chairman of the advisory committee for Massachusetts of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. As part of an ecumenical group, he went to South Vietnam in 1969 to assess the state of religious and political freedom there. Asked in a 1970 Globe interview why he was running for Congress, Father Drinan answered with a series of questions. ``Why? Why not? Jesuit priests always have been avant-garde. Right?'' His candidacy drew nationwide attention. The conservative columnist William F. Buckley Jr. called Father Drinan ``the greatest threat to orderly thought since Eleanor Roosevelt left this vale of tears.'' He won a three-way race in November by 3,000 votes. Also elected to Congress in 1970 were such vehemently anti war Democrats as Ron Dellums of California and Bella Abzug of New York. Yet Father Drinan drew particular attention. In January 1974, George H.W. Bush, who was then Republican Party chairman, said there wasn't another congressman whose defeat he more strongly hoped for than Father Drinan's. He promised a major GOP drive to unseat him. None materialized. Last night, several of Father Drinan's colleagues said his character and conscience made him a strong voice on Capitol Hill. In a statement, Senator Edward Kennedy cited Father Drinan's principled commitment to, among other causes, ending the war in Vietnam. ``He was a profile in courage in every sense of the word, and the nation has lost one of the finest persons ever to serve in Congress,'' Kennedy said. ``When I arrived in Congress, Father Drinan was already serving as the conscience of the House of Representatives with every vote he cast,'' U.S. Representative Edward Markey of Malden said. `` He was a man of faith who never stopped searching for truth, and he was a committed educator who stayed true to his faith.'' After leaving Congress, Father Drinan returned to academe, teaching international human rights, legal ethics, and constitutional law at Georgetown University Law Center. He published ``Can God and Caesar Coexist? Balancing Religious Freedom and International Law'' (2005). In addition to keeping a heavy schedule of speeches and writing, Father Drinan served on the board of Common Cause, the citizens lobbying group, and spent two terms as president of the liberal organization Americans for Democratic Action. While in Congress, he had been a founder of the National Interreligious Task Force for Soviet Jewry. (Father Drinan was a strong supporter of Soviet Jews seeking emigration.) He also served on the board of Bread for the World, an organization dedicated to feeding the hungry. In a 1992 Globe interview, Father Drinan called ending world hunger his ``number one passion.'' In that interview, Father Drinan was asked what he felt about the Vatican's forcing him to choose between the clergy and Congress. ``History will have to judge whether or not that was a wise decision,'' he said. He leaves a sister-in-law, Helen, of Newton Highlands, and three nieces. Funeral arrangements had not been made last night.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support this bill. I want to commend Representative Hare and Representative LaHood for their support on this bill, and I appreciate their eloquence in support of a truly great man and a great friend. I was on the staff of Congressman Joe Moakley of Massachusetts when Lane Evans first came to Washington. Immediately, Joe knew that he had a new ally in the fight to protect human rights in El Salvador. Lane regularly met with people from Central America here in Washington and in his district. He traveled to the region, did his homework, and became an active Member in the effort to change U.S. policy and bring peace to that troubled region. As a marine who served in Vietnam, Lane chaired the Vietnam Era Veterans Caucus in the House. Having seen war up close and personal, he worked with David Bonior, Jack Quinn, Senator Leahy and Senator Hagel and the Vietnam Veterans of America to push for a U.S. and international ban on the production and use of anti-personnel landmines. When I was privileged to be elected to Congress in 1996, one of the first things I did was go to Lane Evans and pledge my support for his work on landmines. Lane's personal experience made him the champion of two other important causes. As the son of a union member, Lane consistently spoke out against the abuses facing so many workers around the world as they struggled to achieve their most basic rights. As a veteran himself, he made sure that we don't treat with suspicion the questions raised by those returning from war, whether on the effects of agent orange, gulf war syndrome or post-traumatic stress; and we must never reward their service with neglect, homelessness, underfunded health care, or reduced benefits. When I think of Lane Evans, I think of an easy-going, likeable Midwesterner. I also think of courage and conviction in how he lives his own life and how he continues to confront the challenges facing America. Mr. Speaker, I miss his voice and his presence in this House, and I urge all my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield to my friend from California, the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Rules, Mr. Dreier, 30 minutes; pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. And during consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes of debate only. Mr. Speaker, the rule before us provides 1 hour of general debate in the House equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member on the Committee on Rules. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the resolution and provides that the resolution shall be considered as read. The rule makes in order the amendment printed in the Rules report accompanying this resolution, if offered by Representative Kirk of Illinois or his designee. The amendment shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question. The rule also waives all points of order against consideration of the amendment printed in the report, and contains one motion to recommit, which may not contain instructions. Finally, the rule provides that, notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the bill to a time designated by the Speaker. Mr. Speaker, let me clearly state that there is no obligation for any Member to offer the amendment. The rule simply allows Mr. Kirk or his designee the option of offering this amendment if they choose to do so. Also, Mr. Speaker, the Republicans were given the option to offer a substitute, and they declined. This resolution will amend the House rules and allow the five Delegates who were elected to the House of Representatives to vote in the Committee of the Whole. The Committee of the Whole is comprised of all Members of the House of Representatives, and is a procedural forum in which the House considers debates and votes on amendments to most of the legislation reported out of committee. After consideration of amendments in the Committee of the Whole, legislation is reported to the floor of the House for final consideration. As we all know, Mr. Speaker, Delegates and Resident Commissioner have the same powers, rights and responsibilities as full Members of the House, with some exceptions. They cannot vote on the floor in the House or in the Committee of the Whole, they cannot offer a motion to reconsider, and they are not counted for quorum purposes. Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides certain protections that have been ruled constitutional by Federal courts. Specifically, no Delegate or Resident Commissioner can provide the deciding margin of any amendment considered in the Committee of the Whole. In other words, if the vote in the Committee of the Whole is decided by five or fewer votes, it must be reconsidered immediately by the House of Representatives. Let me state this clearly for all my colleagues. No Delegate or Resident Commissioner will provide the margin of victory or defeat of any amendment. It is that clear. Delegates and the Resident Commissioner will not be able to vote on final passage, nor will they be able to vote on procedural motions. Mr. Speaker, the Delegates and Resident Commissioner represent people who serve in our Armed Forces. Thirty thousand residents of Guam are military personnel. Over 2,400 soldiers from the territories and the District of Columbia are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan today, wars that this Chamber voted in favor of. American Samoa has the highest per capita casualty rate of any State or territory for the war in Iraq. We believe that the people who fight and die wearing the uniform of the United States deserve to have their voices heard in the people's House. Beyond that, Mr. Speaker, residents of all territories and the District of Columbia pay Social Security taxes, Medicare taxes under FICA. The people living in the territories and the District of Columbia deserve to have a voice in Congress, and their elected representatives, the Delegates and the Resident Commissioner, deserve to have a vote in the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Speaker, while these voting privileges are in large part symbolic, and I, for one, believe that the District of Columbia, where people actually pay Federal taxes in addition to all the other contributions that they make to this country, deserve to have full voting rights in this Congress, but this is the least, I think, we can do to restore some modicum of representation to these millions of Americans, and I strongly urge my colleagues to support this rule and vote for the resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to ask unanimous consent to have inserted in the Record a letter that was sent to the Rules Committee signed by Mr. Faleomavaega, Mr. Fortuno, Ms. Eleanor Holmes Norton, Mrs. Christensen, and Ms. Bordallo in support of the underlying bill. And let me remind my colleague from Georgia, this is not a closed rule. If he wants a closed rule, he has the right to amend it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. What is the gentleman's objection?